| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Neocon Oil Cheerleaders" |
| Date: |
26 Jul 2005 01:45:48 AM |
| Object: |
Neocons Kill Even Token Efforts to Curb Oil Consumption |
Proof that the Oil Companies have taken over the White House AND
Congress:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/26/politics/26energy.html
WASHINGTON, July 25 - Working furiously to try to strike a deal on broad
energy legislation, Congressional negotiators on Monday killed two major
provisions aimed at curbing consumption of traditional fossil fuels like
oil, natural gas and coal.
House members rejected an effort to incorporate a plan passed by the
Senate to require utilities to use more renewable energy like wind and
solar power to generate electricity. They also defeated a bid to direct
the president to find ways to cut the nation's appetite for oil by one
million barrels a day.
Backers of the initiative to identify the oil savings said it was an
alternative to the politically difficult approach of increasing
automotive gas mileage standards and would demonstrate that Congress was
serious about cutting the nation's dependence on oil imports.
"We are having an energy bill that is doing so much on the supply side
that we need to address the demand side," said Representative Henry A.
Waxman, Democrat of California, who said the goal was the "bare minimum
of what we ought to be doing."
But Republican opponents of the plan said the fuel savings target could
lead to unpopular restrictions like mandatory car pools and put too much
responsibility for achieving the goal in the hands of the president.
"Just telling the president to wave a magic wand and tell each and every
one of us that we need to conserve may sound good," said Representative
Joe L. Barton, Republican of Texas and chairman of the Energy and
Commerce Committee, "but those of us elected by the people every two
years have a different view of that."
Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, the senior Democrat on the Energy
and Natural Resources Committee, said his plan to require power plant
operators who now rely on coal, oil and natural gas to increase their
use of renewable fuels was a low-cost, market-driven approach to cutting
demand for fossil fuels and easing air pollution.
Under the proposal, which has repeatedly passed the Senate, utilities
would have to generate at least 10 percent of their electricity through
renewable fuels by 2020.
"It would reduce our dependence on traditional polluting sources of
electricity," Mr. Bingaman said.
But opponents of the initiative, known as the renewable portfolio
standard, asserted it would drive up the cost of electricity, conflict
with similar state initiatives and put a burden on utilities in some
regions where acceptable alternative fuels are in short supply.
The energy bill has come under criticism from some lawmakers and
conservation groups for doing too little to cut into the nation's
dependence on foreign oil while increasing oil and gas production. The
two provisions dropped Monday were seen by the environmental community
as among the few bright spots in the energy bill.
While House and Senate negotiators on energy policy met into the night
in an effort to agree on an energy measure that could clear the House
and Senate this week, a separate group of lawmakers was trying to hash
out the tax elements of an energy proposal.
Lawmakers and aides said they expected the tax breaks and incentives to
cost in the neighborhood of $11.5 billion: more than sought by the House
and White House but less than approved by the Senate. Should lawmakers
agree on that figure, the tax package was expected to include a
substantial emphasis on tax credits for energy efficiency.
Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and chairman of the tax-
writing Finance Committee, told reporters he believed negotiators could
also potentially come to agreement this week on a long overdue $286
billion highway and transit bill. As lawmakers sought to clear a backlog
of bills before recessing for the summer, other unresolved business
included the Central American Free Trade Agreement and repeal or
revision of the inheritance tax.
At the White House, Scott McClellan, the spokesman, said the
administration was eager to see an energy bill since President Bush has
been calling for a new energy policy since taking office in 2001. "Four
years is long enough to wait for comprehensive energy legislation," Mr.
McClellan said.
The prospects for an energy bill improved markedly on Sunday when the
negotiators said they would abandon a contentious plan to provide
producers and distributors of the gasoline additive MTBE legal immunity
from some pollution lawsuits. That plan stalled the bill two years ago
and was looming as a significant obstacle again this year.
.
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: Neocons Kill Even Token Efforts to Curb Oil Consumption |
26 Jul 2005 12:35:06 PM |
|
|
"Neocon Oil Cheerleaders" <no@nospspam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d4f7bf56cc6d3fc989690@newsgroups.comcast.net...
Proof that the Oil Companies have taken over the White House AND
Congress:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/26/politics/26energy.html
WASHINGTON, July 25 - Working furiously to try to strike a deal on broad
energy legislation, Congressional negotiators on Monday killed two major
provisions aimed at curbing consumption of traditional fossil fuels like
oil, natural gas and coal.
House members rejected an effort to incorporate a plan passed by the
Senate to require utilities to use more renewable energy like wind and
solar power to generate electricity. They also defeated a bid to direct
the president to find ways to cut the nation's appetite for oil by one
million barrels a day.
Those provisions are not meant to be passed and it was a foregone conclusion
they would be zapped. It was merely for someone like the NY Times to shriek
about. Solar power is not practical and windmills are bad for the
environment.
Want to cut down on oil? Require the auto industry to build into each car a
limit of how fast it can go and set them at 30 mph. That's not too practical
either. That idea would also get zapped but those are the kind of
attachments the dems like to tack on so they can ***** that reps don't want
to help and are in bed with one industry or another. I often wonder what
would happen if they let some of these hare brained ideas go through and the
pres signed it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thaddeus Stephens" |
|
| Title: Re: Neocons Kill Even Token Efforts to Curb Oil Consumption |
26 Jul 2005 09:16:18 AM |
|
|
Neocon Oil Cheerleaders wrote:
Proof that the Oil Companies have taken over the White House AND
Congress:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/26/politics/26energy.html
WASHINGTON, July 25 - Working furiously to try to strike a deal on broad
energy legislation, Congressional negotiators on Monday killed two major
provisions aimed at curbing consumption of traditional fossil fuels like
oil, natural gas and coal.
House members rejected an effort to incorporate a plan passed by the
Senate to require utilities to use more renewable energy like wind and
solar power to generate electricity. They also defeated a bid to direct
the president to find ways to cut the nation's appetite for oil by one
million barrels a day.
Backers of the initiative to identify the oil savings said it was an
alternative to the politically difficult approach of increasing
automotive gas mileage standards and would demonstrate that Congress was
serious about cutting the nation's dependence on oil imports.
"We are having an energy bill that is doing so much on the supply side
that we need to address the demand side," said Representative Henry A.
Waxman, Democrat of California, who said the goal was the "bare minimum
of what we ought to be doing."
But Republican opponents of the plan said the fuel savings target could
lead to unpopular restrictions like mandatory car pools and put too much
responsibility for achieving the goal in the hands of the president.
"Just telling the president to wave a magic wand and tell each and every
one of us that we need to conserve may sound good," said Representative
Joe L. Barton, Republican of Texas and chairman of the Energy and
Commerce Committee, "but those of us elected by the people every two
years have a different view of that."
We're not talking about waving a magic wand:
Building a mass transit system in major urban areas would cut down
on oil consumption considerably.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: Neocons Kill Even Token Efforts to Curb Oil Consumption |
26 Jul 2005 03:33:21 AM |
|
|
Neocon Oil Cheerleaders wrote:
Proof that the Oil Companies have taken over the White House AND
Congress:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/26/politics/26energy.html
WASHINGTON, July 25 - Working furiously to try to strike a deal on broad
energy legislation, Congressional negotiators on Monday killed two major
provisions aimed at curbing consumption of traditional fossil fuels like
oil, natural gas and coal.
House members rejected an effort to incorporate a plan passed by the
Senate to require utilities to use more renewable energy like wind and
solar power to generate electricity. They also defeated a bid to direct
the president to find ways to cut the nation's appetite for oil by one
million barrels a day.
Backers of the initiative to identify the oil savings said it was an
alternative to the politically difficult approach of increasing
automotive gas mileage standards and would demonstrate that Congress was
serious about cutting the nation's dependence on oil imports.
--Easiest way in the world to cut the nation's oil consumption would be
to lower the speed limit by a mere 10mph on highways and interstates,
as was done in the seventies and eighties. It saves millions of
gallons of oil per day and a significant number of lives per year.
Neither the Republicans NOR the Democrats are interested in this
approach. I've brought it up several times now, have seen absolutely
no support for it from either side, and a number of posters have
actively opposed it for, at best, rather vague reasons. Wind and solar
power are impractical as substitutes for most uses of fossil fuel.
Small wind generators and solar panels will work for keeping batteries
charged in big trailers that are dry-camped in the sunbelt over the
winter, otherwise, you can forget much impact from those alternatives.
Your concern over "neocons" illustrates that you are taking a partisan
approach to the energy issue, which will get us nowhere fast.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
