|
Remarks of Senator Barack Obama Thank you. It’s great to be here with the Alliance to Save Energy this morning. I know we have a lot of folks to hear from today so I’ll be brief, but I just wanted to say a few words about the kind of energy future that’s possible in this country if we start taking this issue seriously. In the middle of the 1970s, the soaring price of oil was crippling Brazil’s economy. Not only were gas prices beyond the reach of most Brazilians, but the prices of all the goods, services, and methods of transportation that were directly or indirectly tied to the use of oil. The economy of an entire nation was held hostage to the whims of other nations, from which Brazil imported nearly 90% of its oil. As a result, the decision was made in 1975 to launch a national effort that would end that country’s dependence on foreign oil forever. With plenty of arable land available and mass quantities of sugarcane already being produced, sugar-based ethanol became the most likely candidate to replace oil as the fuel of choice in Brazil. And so the farmers started growing more and the factories started churning and the technology was developed and the flex-fuel vehicles were produced. The project wasn’t quick or easy, and it certainly had its setbacks, but thanks to a substantial, sustained commitment by the government and its people, Brazil recently announced that this year, they will become the first nation in the world to achieve energy independence from oil. Think about that. Since the 1970s, we’ve heard just about every U.S. President tell the nation that we need to free ourselves from our dependence on fossil fuels. And yet here we are, more than three decades later, still listening to our current President talking about this country’s addiction to oil. Meanwhile, in that same time span, a relatively poor, underdeveloped nation with a fraction of the resources we have has finally reached a goal that we never could. This isn’t acceptable. Not in this country. Not with the challenges we face from an oil-based economy. Brazil has already showed us that a clean, cheap, renewable energy future is possible, and now is our time to get it done. By now, the dangers of our current addiction are well-known: the high gas prices; the sagging auto industry that’s losing jobs and profits to foreign competitors who are already making more fuel-efficient cars; our dependence on unstable, undemocratic foreign governments for most of our oil; the easy target that poorly-guarded oil refineries and pipelines offer to terrorists and enemies; the climate change and natural disasters that are intensifying because of the fossil fuels we keep burning. The list goes on and on. You’d think by now we’d get the point on energy dependence. Never has the failure to take on a single challenge so detrimentally affected nearly every aspect of our well-being as a nation. And never have the possible solutions had the potential to do so much good for so many generations to come. Of course, many Americans have gotten this point, and it’s true that the call for energy independence is now coming from an amazingly diverse coalition of interests. From farmers and businesses, military leaders and CIA officials, scientists and Evangelical Christians, auto executives and unions, and politicians of almost every political persuasion, people are realizing that an oil future is not a secure future for this country. And yet, when it comes to finding a way to end our dependence on fossil fuels, the greatest vacuum in leadership, the biggest failure of imagination, and the most stubborn refusal to admit the need for change is coming from the very people who are running the country. After the President’s last State of the Union, when he told us that America was addicted to oil, there was a brief moment of hope that he’d finally do something on energy. I was among the hopeful. But then I saw the plan. His funding for renewable fuels is at the same level it was the day he took office. He refuses to call for even a modest increase in fuel-efficiency standards for cars. And his latest budget funds less then half of the energy bill he himself signed into law - leaving hundreds of millions of dollars in under-funded energy proposals. This is not a serious effort. See, there's a reason that some have compared the quest for energy independence to the Manhattan Project or the Apollo moon landing. Like those historic efforts, moving away from an oil economy is a major challenge that will require a sustained national commitment. During World War II, we had an entire country working around the clock to produce enough planes and tanks to beat the Axis powers. In the middle of the Cold War, we built a national highway system so we had a quick way to transport military equipment across the country. When we wanted to pull ahead of the Russians into space, we poured millions into a national education initiative that graduated thousands of new scientists and engineers. America now finds itself at a similar crossroads. As gas prices keep rising, the Middle East grows ever more unstable, and the ice caps continue to melt, we face a now-or-never, once-in-a-generation opportunity to set this country on a different course. I believe that we can start by focusing on two things: the cars we drive and the fuels we use. For years, we've hesitated to raise fuel economy standards as a nation in part because of a very legitimate concern - the impact it would have on Detroit. The auto industry is right when they argue that transitioning to more hybrid and fuel-efficient cars would require massive investment at a time when they're struggling under the weight of rising health care costs, sagging profits, and stiff competition. That’s why government has a role in helping the auto industry make this transition. Yes, we should raise fuel economy standards by 3% a year over the next fifteen years, starting in 2008. But we should help them get there. Right now, one of the biggest costs facing auto manufacturers isn't the cars they make, it's the health care they provide. Health care costs make up $1,500 of the price of every GM car that's made - more than the cost of steel. Retiree health care alone cost the Big 3 automakers nearly $6.7 billion just last year. I believe we should make the auto companies a deal that could solve this problem. It’s a piece of legislation I introduced called “Health Care for Hybrids,” and it would allow the federal government to pick up part of the tab for the auto companies’ retiree health care costs. In exchange, the auto companies would then use some of that savings to build and invest in more fuel-efficient cars. It’s a win-win proposal for the industry – their retirees will be taken care of, they’ll save money on health care, and they’ll be free to invest in the kind of fuel-efficient cars that are the key to their competitive future. But building cars that use less oil is only one side of the equation. The other involves replacing the oil we use with the home-grown biofuels, like Brazil did. Already, there are hundreds of fueling stations that use a blend of ethanol and gasoline known as E85, and there are millions of cars on the road with the flexible-fuel tanks necessary to use this fuel – including my own right here in Illinois. But the challenge we face with these biofuels is getting them out of the labs, out of the farms, and onto the wider commercial market. The federal government can help in a few ways here, and recently, I introduced the American Fuels Act with Senator Dick Lugar to get us started. First, this legislation would reduce the risk of investing in renewable fuels by providing loan guarantees and venture capital to those entrepreneurs with the best plans to develop and sell biofuels on a commercial market. Second, it would let the private sector know that there will always be a market for renewable fuels by creating an alternative diesel standard in this country that would blend millions of more gallons of renewable fuels into the petroleum supply each year. Third, it would help make sure that every single new car in America is a flexible-fuel vehicle within a decade. Currently it costs manufacturers just $100 to add these tanks to each car. But we can do them one better. If they install flexible-fuel tanks in their cars before the decade’s up, we will provide them a $100 tax credit to do it – so there’s no excuse for delay. And we’d also give consumers a bargain by offering a 35 cents tax credit for every gallon of E85 they use. Fourth, this legislation calls for a Director of Energy Security to oversee all of our efforts. Like the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the National Intelligence Director, this person would be an advisor to the National Security Council and have the full authority to coordinate America’s energy policy across all levels of government. He or she would approve all major budget decisions and provide a full report to Congress and the country every year detailing the progress we’re making toward energy independence. Now, there are plenty of other good ideas out there we can pursue on energy from both parties and from outside Washington too. But the point is, we need to start pursuing them now. We can’t afford to wait anymore. The Alliance to Save Energy has known this for awhile, and I look forward to hearing from you and working with you in the future to make sure the rest of the country knows this too. Thank you. |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||
|
|||||||||
The Alliance is pleased to announce the first in a series of 2006