So true. The average family man/worker has enough worries already without paying attention to whether the oil industry has made a business out of his government. Worries like finding health insurance for his kids and buying gas to fill up his F150, for example. Not to mention the fact that Beltran's coming back to town. You can show people all the facts in the world, but you can't make them care.
Isn't ethanol from corn a net energy loser, taking more energy to grow it than you get out of it? I'm a nuke supporter though. The technology is much better now than that used at 3 mile island or Chernoble. I say let's finish Yucca Mountain and move ahead with the fastest expansion of nucler energy we can. It's a domestic industry and it produces no CO2 or acid rain. And as far as I know Mr. Burns does not support Islamic extremist.
I'm just waiting for Dubya to bring 50 Days of Games to the Collise-- er, Reliance Stadium......he can have Al-Queda capturees duel it out with grizzlies and crocs...
If that's the case, the energy industry is holding the country/federal government as a hostage: You want me to solve your energy problem? Gimme the damn money! I don't mind this if we are in surplus. But given high deficit we are facing, subsidizing a well-off industry with much needed tax $$ is just not right.
Subsidies and tax write offs are govenment's only way to influence the direction of private industries.
Repubs and Dems are cut from the same cloth. We need to completely dismantle the current two-party system and insist that everyone who runs for government is an independent
I can't believe the reaction that this bill is getting in here. This bill is directly targeted to help reduce this nation's dependence on foreign oil. You guys need to understand that there are different sectors of the "energy industry". The upstream oil and gas companies that are making money hand over fist are not the same companies that provide electricity for your homes. You're confusing the two here. I can write more later (in a hurry now...), but this bill is a positive step forward in the road to energy independence. Very positive. I'm pro-alternative sources of energy, and the money going towards ethanol, coal and nuclear sources is great. The US = the Saudi Arabia of coal. We need to take advantage of that in a clean burning way, which is absolutely possible. Nuclear power is extremely cheap on an ongoing basis (O&M spend) and needs to be taken advantage of as well. Some of you guys need to stop the knee jerk reactions and assumptions that the Republicans are out to get you. Not the case here, as evidenced by the large # of Democrats who were on board with the bill's passage. Talk when you can speak intelligently about something, which many of you aren't doing in this thread. I'll write more later.
If it is such a great part of the bill why add it on, when nobody has a chance to discuss it, debate it, or offer up alternatives, or changes? That kind of skirting the democratic process looks bad for those who do it and the bill itself.
First off, this thread title is a total joke, considering wnes doesn't even have an understanding of the bill, as evidenced by him asking me for advice. That and the rest of the libs' knee-jerk reaction is indicative of the thoughtfulness of all of their political criticisms. The bill has its good and bad parts. The worst part is that the critical refining industry (the weakest link in the crude-to-gas value chain and a chief contributor to high gas prices) is going to be exposed to MTBE leak liabilities. That's billions of dollars down the tubes that could otherwise be used to expand refining capacity, which we are in critical need of. There is no doubt that the removal of liability protection for refiners was insisted upon by the environmental lunatic fringe. No doubt. Thank them for gas prices. Incentives are being put in place for ethanol -- a cleaner burning corn fuel used as a gasoline additive. Regulatory hurdles are lowered for - The construction of nuclear power plants (lowers our electricity prices) - An expansion of the electrical transmission grid (lowers our electricity prices and prevents blackouts) - Offshore drilling in the Gulf (lowers price of oil by potentially bringing on new supply) - Utility mergers (lowers cost of electricity by purging inefficiences and other unnecessary costs of two independent firms) - LNG facilities siting (brings in natural gas through tankers which carry frozen gas from places like Trinidad. Ultimately will lower the price of natural gas) Renewable energy such as biomass, wind and sun are also given tax incentives. Seems pretty fair, and with a mind to reduce dependence on foreign oil as well as lower prices for consumers. What is wrong with that, libs? Do you want higher energy costs? Do you want high regulatory hurdles in place that limit innovation and progress?
Some powerful people are Republicans, some powerful people are Democrats, but all powerful people are wealthy.
Higher energy costs? Like what we have now with no end in sight? This bill is status quo. If Social Security needs a TOTAL OVERHAUL because it'll be insolvent by 2019 (or whatever), then why don't we need to total overhaul of our oil economy when we hit peak production shortly thereafter?
I'm not sure I understand your arguements.... You could argue that there is no end in sight for higher prices with regard to most everything. Eventually inflation catches up. Even stuff that comes down in price will eventually cost more dollars as inflation over time kicks in. Also, who's suggesting a total overhaul of SS? Is there a bill in place that suggests that we scrap it and start over (i.e. total overhaul)? Peak production doesn't mean the end of oil; it means we've hit the "middle ground" so to speak. It means we've used about half of it up (if I understand it correctly). There is no doubt that we need to wean ourselvse off the oil economy; however, in order to avoid political and economic catastrophy we have to be weaned. Cold turkey would be a disaster. I hate cars (hate is a strong word; indifferent is more like it. I hate bad and unsafe drivers, though). I'm all for clean fuel but I also understand that its going to be a long, tough road to get there.
If you consider yourself a strong advocate for laissez-faire capitalism, don't you find it ironic the energy industry (which I guess you work for) is so inept that they should ask for intervention from federal government to establish a framework for developing a wider mix of energy sources? Without government subsidy, how and why is the oil industry unable to expand its refining capacity by invest with its own money, since it has ratched up record profits? Show us how the energy industry in general, and the oil industry in particular, is capable of self discipline in maintaining a clear and safe environment around its facilities without government regulations and oversight?
Just to clarify, it means the end of 'cheap' oil, meaning it will get progressively and parabolically more expensive to extract crude to the surface. This coupled with an explosive growth in demand worldwide does not paint a pretty picture.
Businesses will look further into alternative methods that were once cost prohibitive. The increasing costs of petroleum has spurned the refinery industry to upgrade their existing capacity and allow more sour heavy crude processing. If we do hit $100 a barrel, they might be inclined to build more refineries. The $10 a barrel era is over and they're thankful for it. Other techniques such as shale oil and tar sands extraction, and Bush's favorite, coal gasification, would probably become favorable as the price of gas shoots up after the peak. The fossil fuel alternative industry doesn't look feasible under the current petrol infrastructure. It's a square peg in a circular slot, and the oil industry's entrenchment in Capital Hill will keep it that way. That's why there are more initiatives for deep sea exploration and coal and ethanol (farm lobby), than for renewable resources. I'm mixed on the bill, but it's much better than the 80 billion dollar proposal Cheney's Energy task force proposed 3 year ago and somehow resurrects itself every year.
This House energy bill does not do nearly enough to foster fuel efficiency, to improve the use of renewable energy resources, and thus to decrease the U.S. dependency on fossile fuel. It basically remains silent on two critical issues: adopting minimum fuel efficiency standards for the cars and trucks operating in USA, and setting minimum renewable energy standards for our utilities to bring America's sources of electricity into the 21st century. It does not close the massive tax credit ($25,000) loophole for gas guzzling SUVs such as Hummer. Besides the $25,000 equipment deduction, SUVs still qualify for "bonus depreciation", an added write off of 30 percent of the purchase price above $25,000. Beyond that, additional costs can be deducted according to regular depreciation rules, or 20 percent in the first year. The semi-laundry list posted by Trader_Jorge again shows the priority of the current energy policy is still relying heavily, if not exclusively, on the early 20th-century technology, the coal and oil-driven electricity production, rather than focusing on investing in technology innovations, research and development of renewable energy programs, and exploring alternative energy sources. While American tax payers are shouldering the ever increasing energy costs, the world's biggest oil companies are ratching up record-breaking profits. Just this week BP announced a record in second quarter profits of $4.98 billion. Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest oil producer, also announced skyrocketing profits, their second-quarter profit rose 32 percent to $7.64 billion. The Texas-based oil company broke history records with sales rising 25% to $88.6 billion. There is, however, a Senate bill that would result in nearly three times as much energy savings as the bill passed by the House. According to American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, the Senate bill builds upon the House bill but includes much more extensive tax incentives for energy-efficient equipment and buildings, a more extensive list of new equipment efficiency standards, and several other additional energy-saving provisions. If we should use hard earned tax payers' money to cajole the wealthy and mature energy companies to help rescue the future of our nation, we need to embrace energy framework and strategies that are forward-thinking, fundamentally sound, and environmentally conscionable, not some half-assed remedies that are near-sighted, mainly profitable to the special interests groups, and virtually doing little to solve the long-term problems. By adopting this House bill, we essentially confine ourselves by only taking baby steps to escape a looming, potentially disastrous energy crisis.
Please read the bill before you post another opinion piece. How does this bill *not* promote laissez-faire capitalism if it is removing regulatory hurdles and minimizing tax bills to alternative energy producers? Can't wait to hear this answer...
Total swing and a miss. The bill's intention is to reduce consumer energy costs. Moving to coal and nuclear electricity generation makes incredible economic sense, as does LNG facility permitting. You are applying typical liberal Halliburton spin to a topic which frankly, you know nothing about. If you read the bill, you'd know that the bill dramatically PENALIZES Exxon, by removing MTBE liabilities. That could cost them billions. How is that 'cozying up' to wealthy Texas oil companies? The US has a 200 year supply of coal, which is now being burned much cleaner, due to scrubbers being installed, and is also being used in gasification projects to provide alternative sources of energy. Coal is an incredible resource that we have in our own nation. We should utilize it -- and we are. TXU announced plans today to build a lignite-fired plant south of Dallas. On a btu-input basis, coal is roughy 3 times cheaper than natural gas as a feedstock for electricity generation. It makes extreme economic sense to burn it. Progress. This bill focuses what we can control -- the supply of energy. Consumers demand for energy has not shown the ability to change. Consumers are still demanding Hummers, SUV's and large homes. Attempting to stop them is a wasted effort. They won't. Providing incentives and removing regulatory hurdles for energy producers is how you increase supply, which ultimately lowers prices for all. Please, read the bill before you comment further.
