EEE会議（米国の包括的エネルギー法案：難航する審議状況）..........................................03.11.19


度々お伝えしておりますように、米国の包括的エネルギー法案を巡る連邦議会の審議
は、依然として上下両院の意見対立のため難航を続けており、ブッシュ大統領の期待
通りに行っていないようです。　反対派の議員（主として民主党）は推進派議員（主
として共和党）の強引なやり方に強く反発しており、その急先鋒であるJohn MacCain
議員などは、この法案は特定のエネルギー企業（とくに石油・ガス関係）や大統領選
挙資金提供者だけに利益をもたらすものだと厳しく批判しています。もう一人の議員
は、「この法案は、ブッシュ政権のイラク侵攻が世界のテロ活動の潮流を食い止めた
（止めなかった）のと同じ程度に米国のエネルギー安全保障の改善に役立つ（役立た
ない）だろう」と痛烈に皮肉っています。　詳しい状況は、次のNew York Timesの社
説(11/18)でどうぞ。

ただし、NY Timesは概ね民主党系で、環境保護派でもあると見られますので、この社
説も多少割引して読む必要があります。　いずれにしても、この法案の成否は微妙な
ところで、もしこの法案が成立せず廃案にでもなると、せっかくのブッシュ政権の意
欲的なエネルギー政策（原子力の再活性化を含む）も十分生かされません。　大統領
選挙戦も絡んで、エネルギー法案の行方は、イラク戦後処理問題と並んで、今後益々
混沌としてきたようです。
--KK

*************************************************

A Shortage of Energy

Published: November 18, 2003

President Bush seems to have been the recipient of poor intelligence again.
Last weekend, he claimed that the energy bill approved by Republican leaders
would make the country "more secure." Senator John McCain's description of
the bill as a "leave no lobbyist behind" barrel of pork for selected
industries and campaign contributors was closer to the truth. So was Senator
Robert Byrd's unsparing judgment that the bill would "do about as much to
improve the nation's energy security as the administration's invasion of
Iraq has done to stem the tide of global terrorism."

One can only hope for a similar show of honesty from 39 of their Senate
colleagues, 41 being the minimum needed to sustain a filibuster and launch
this dreadful bill into the legislative netherworld where it belongs. At
that point Congress can start again and give the country an energy strategy
worthy of the problems it faces, oil dependency being one, and global
warming another.

Both problems require fossil fuel alternatives ? not just environmentalists'
favorite hobbyhorses, like wind and solar power, but biofuels that can take
the place of gasoline. They demand vastly more efficient cars and trucks, as
well as more benign forms of coal, the world's most abundant fuel. This bill
takes baby steps ? a clean-coal demonstration project here, a hydrogen
project there ? that pale next to the huge tax breaks and generous
regulatory rollbacks it gives fossil fuel producers.

The oil and gas companies were particularly well rewarded ? hardly
surprising in a bill that had its genesis partly in Vice President Dick
Cheney's secret task force. Though they did not win permission to drill in
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, they got a lot of other things, not
only tax breaks but also exemptions from the Clean Water Act, protection
against lawsuits for fouling underground water and an accelerated process
for leasing and drilling in sensitive areas at the expense of environmental
reviews and public participation. Meanwhile, the bill imposes new
reliability standards on major electricity producers, but it is not clear
whether it would encourage new and badly needed investment in the power
grid.

The responsibility for providing something better now falls to the
Democratic leadership, in particular Tom Daschle. Mr. Daschle is one of
several Midwestern senators drawn to a provision mandating a big increase in
the use of ethanol made from corn. The ethanol mandate might be justifiable
as part of a much broader and more aggressive biofuels program. By itself,
it is an expensive and environmentally dubious giveaway to Midwestern
farmers who are already generously subsidized. Though Mr. Daschle seems to
regard their votes as essential to his political future, it is time for him
to think on a grander scale.