Friday, December 07, 2007


Legislating Energy Production

" shoes rubbing across this carpet create more energy than the Democrats' energy bill."
Rep. George Radanovich (R-Calif.).

The above-referenced House bill failed to get to a final vote in the Senate today, losing 53-42, with some Democrats joining the Republican minority to block passage of the bill.

Republicans and the Bush administration have criticized the plan for including $21 billion in new tax revenues and setting rules requiring 15% of electricity production by 2020 to come from renewable resources.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the bill would “finally put Americans on the path to solving the energy crisis,” and noted that automakers and environmental groups support the fuel economy increase to 35 miles per gallon by 2020.

What energy crisis? We have tons and tons of fuel in the Rocky mountains here in the United States and even more tons and tons up in the heavy oil and tar sands north of Edmonton. Renewable energy will become affordable (and more than 1 or 2% of the world's energy) when there's nothing left but renewable energy. Until then we ought to use responsibly the fossil fuels we can find. It's not like oil, gas and coal in the ground is doing anyone any good.

I could be wrong but I thought the essential reason for energy legislation was to make more of it available (and therefore cheaper) rather than this plan, which taxed it at a much higher rate (making it less available and more expensive). Maybe the Democrats are so deep into global warming nonsense that they actually do want to make fossil fuel less available and more expensive in the hope that the little people will use less of it. ANWAR, bans on offshore production, even Colorado's new 'Watermelon' oil and gas commission, all seem to point to that basic truth.

Some people are saying that this defeat is just temporary, wait 'til next year and the Democrats will really put the screws to energy producers and consumers.

Could be.

UPDATE: David Freddoso, whoever that is, at the NRO agrees with me that the bill is worthless. Here's what he said at The Corner:

That Awful Energy Bill [David Freddoso]

It failed to get cloture today. I don't see why we don't just scrap the thing, it has absolutely no redeeming value. They will probably try it again without the Renewable Portfolio Standard (which forces utilities to waste money on non-feasible sources of energy like solar and biomass), which will give it a better chance of passage. But Bush would be a fool to sign this bill or anything like it.

It will make
gas more expensive, it will make cars more expensive, and it won't produce any new energy. There's just no reason to pass an energy bill at all, especially if it looks like this one.

There is only one reason this bill didn't die long ago. Big Corn and Big Ethanol are demanding ludicrous, multi-billion gallon fuel-use mandates so that they can maintain their parasitic attachment to Americans' private wealth. And they have bought the Republican Party in the Heartland every bit as much as they have bought the Democrats there.

I have never been a fan of John McCain, but he attracts me if only because he is willing to speak out against this madness. Ron Paul might be the only other candidate willing to do so.


Hear, hear, particularly w/ respect to the ethanol scam.

Nevertheless, it is encumbant upon me to point out that b/c of various acts and omissions occuring during the watch of the Bush administration, the price of gasoline is near record highs.
You mean like ommissions of not opening ANWAR and offshore to exploration? What 'acts' of the Bush administration caused gasoline to rise? We energy cognoscenti seem to all agree that ethanol is not any solution at all and in fact seems to make things generally worse.
Act: Well Roger, how about the invasion of Iraq? Anytime you destabilize part of the Mideast and turn it into a war zone, the price of petroleum is bound to rise.

Omission: What has the Bush administration done to increase our refinery capacity or, better put, encourage the increase of our refining capacity?

Instead, you give the knee jerk ANWAR response. What about drilling off the coast of Florida? Helping the Cubans drill for oil off their coast? Developing drilling off the west coast of Africa?
Sorry to be late to the party here, but Tony, when is it the fed governments job to build refineries for oil companies ? As far as oil companies building siad refineries, they don;t see a long term advantage to do such, without the opening of ANWAR and other sites....I can't remember the links at present, but more than a few big oil people have stated such. More domestic drilling capabilities, and you can bet your ass that refinreies would start popping up. ANWAR is by no means a knee jerk response, considering how long it has been an issue...but I agree, it is but one of the potential drilling locations currently not being tapped, and for absolutely no reason at all.

Smell the coffee. So long as there is limited refining capacity, you get bottlenecks in the supply and demand cycle from which Big Oil makes obscene profits.

Check Exxon Mobile profits for the last several years. Of course if you are the GOP leadership in the form of one George W. Bush, these guys are your political and financial supporters, not to mention your asshole buddies, so why encorage them to get rid of the bottleneck?

No, just squeeze the public b/c we can't do w/o our cars; or buying milk; or a lot of other things which are related to the petroleum based economy.

Just point to gas at $3.00 a gallon and say: "The price would drop if you would let us drill in ANWAR."

It isn't the duty of the governmemnt to build refineries. It is the duty of the government to formulate policy. The ineptness of this administration accounts for a lot of what we see when we spend money.

What I would like is for some smnart guy like Prague Twin of maybe no_slappz to do the following word problem: A family w/ an income of $60,000 per annum was granted $____ by the Bush tax cuts. The increase in the cost of petroleum since 2001, has resulted in an increase of family expenditures in the amount of $____ at the pump and in the increased cost of everything related to the petroleum industry, to wit, the cost of growing and transporting food, by way of example but not by way of limitation.
It is the duty of the government to formulate policy. The ineptness of this administration accounts for a lot of what we see when we spend money.

The Congress is charged with legislating what the federal government can do. Why are you blaming the Executive?

Obscene profits, n. money other people are making. If you owned Exxon Moblie stock, you might feel differently.

Are there more people who drive or who won Exxonn Mobile. One website I found listed pice per gallon including taxes.

12.10.01 $1.28

12.10.07 $3.24

Not sure of trhe locale.

Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?