Historic US Energy Bill in Flux - right now.

[webbie]

Bush has said he will veto it. In short, it is a bill which raises the standards for cars, cuts our needed imported oil in 1/2, increases conservation and helps small business and the development of a domestic clean energy industry.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/1205-23.htm

"According to analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), the measure would save roughly 1.1 million barrels of oil per day in 2020, about half of what the United States currently imports from the Persian Gulf. Consumers would save $22 billion dollars in 2020 -- even after paying the cost of the necessary fuel economy technology. Additionally, the provision would prevent more than 190 million metric tons of global warming pollution, the equivalent of taking 28 million of today's average cars and trucks off the road."

Yes, the bill is a compromise - I personally would have wanted more, but that is politics. But for it to get vetoed if it passes?
Too much, IMHO.

We need to do SOMETHING and this is a giant leap in the right direction.

 

[pdboilermaker]

Seems like a good bill on the surface, however....As with any bill that seems worthy, rest assured that hidden somewhere in the is billions of dollars to study the effects of water buffalo vomit to the eco-system, millions of dollars to study the possibility of making colorless crayons, a few hundered thousand dollars to determine if there is really enough difference between dolphins and porpises to call them different names. etc....

Unfortunatly, this bill is like the other thousands of new laws that are prepared and bundled each year that are filled with totally unrelated subjects. It forces you to toss out the baby with the bathwater. The USA needs either 1. Line item veto or 2. No more bill bundling.

But both sides like the bill bundling too much to let option 1 or 2 happen. They can use it to their political parties advantage either way to make the other party look bad.

Dems say "George Bush doesnt care about the environment by not passing this bill"
Reps say "George cares about the environment but doesnt think that we should spend 1 billion to study the long term effects of bottled water in caged rats"

Reps say "Bill Clinton doesnt care about little learning disabled children that have been injured in car accidents"
Dems say "Bill Clinton does care about little learning disabled children that have been injured in car accidents but thinks it's silly to spend 1 billion dollars to study if getting high everynite drains a family financially"

Personnally, I think the parties are like pro wrestlers, they dont care who wins, just so its in one of their two parties. After a hard fought election of name calling and bashing, they probably go to the bar, have a few drinks together, turn the bill into us tax payers as "a high level meeting" and laugh their butts off at our stupidity as voters.

 

[DiscoInferno]

I think the whole mandated MPG approach is a dodge, a way to pawn off the hard choices onto the car makers. It's political suicide to suggest, of course, but the "right" thing to do is simply to jack up the federal gas tax like most of the rest of the world. This will naturally increase average MPG via market incentives, rather than through mandates. The tax could be lower for "good" fuels, replacing todays subsidies, but which fuels are "good" depends on if we want to reduce pollution, carbon, or foreign energy dependence. You could even try to calm the anti-tax crowd by making the whole exercise revenue-neutral; just lower other taxes to match, or issue fixed-size refunds. (Imagine essentially getting paid to not use energy!)

Another advantage (my view) of directly taxing energy (gasoline, heating oil, nat. gas, etc.) is that you make the citizens more responsible for the true (economic, environmental, and political) cost of their lifestyle. Want to drive a hummer to and from your mansion heated to 75 degrees all winter? Then pay up. This will hit poor people harder, of course, but at some point you just have to say that heating a large leaky house with fossil fuels (rather than, say, renting a smaller more efficient apartment) isn't responsible no matter your income.

 

[webbie]

Perfection is not possible in laws, because just as here you have various opinions.

There are a few truims to this bill that folks should know about, however:
1. It was obviously put forward by the Democrats
2. It is 100% paid for in the bill, by removing (old) incentives for oil and gas companies, etc. - the idea not being to screw them, but these subsidies were created when oil was $20-@30 a barrel, and now that they are the most profitable and largest corps in the world, they do not need too many extra tax breaks.

Are there hidden benefits in it.....like for ethanol? Surely, yes!

But I don't think it does much good to compare it to pork like a bridge to nowhere or studying that people who don't get enough sleep end up tired. It is closer to this:

1. The Dems and some GOP'er say we have to go to the moon - a major program designed with multiple prongs to get us weaned off mideast oil.
2. Bush says (or his master say), "no, we like things the way they are, with me kissing the Saudis and Haliburton making Billions".

Not to be too obvious, but GW does not see any problem with spending almost a trillion on Iraq without even putting it into the budget (all emergency spending), so I can't really listen much when he says he wants to save a few dollars on a domestic program.

The bottom line - in my opinion, is this. We have a chance to vastly improve things.....things that will help us with energy independence, less pollution, a better and smarter economy and many other benefits. If we do not pass that, then what do we do? Stick our noses back in the sand and hope?

So it's gotta be done, in my opinion.

Update - passed 235 to 181 in the house, but:
"Republicans object to the renewable energy mandate and the tax (credits) portion"

One point that should be made - folks are always saying that no one in the government wants to do anything about our energy situation. Well, in this case, the Democrats do. The GOP does also, but:
"Republicans have primarily focused on increased domestic petroleum production, a nuclear renaissance and development of the country's massive coal reserves."

So there is a clear difference in how the various parties would attack the problem. And the GOP ideal is decidedly not "green" in any way, except for the money.

 

[reelwork02]

I live in Ketchikan Alaska, the town wanting the "bridge to nowhere" and I resent that you use it as an example of Pork. If your town had to take a ferry to get to your airport, I am sure you would have a different opinion as to what qualifies as nowhere. Our economy has lost business opportunities because of insufficient access to the airport. This at a time when our economy is in shambles because of the limited timber harvesting, all due to the east coast liberals out to save Alaska from its residents (my example of a generalization). btw it is even hard to find a place to cut firewood.

 

[webbie]

Hey, reel - I certainly did not make up the name for that bridge....and I think a lot of reasonable people would call a span longer than the Golden Gate and higher than the Brooklyn Bridge - for a town of 7500 residents......where a ferry already runs every 15 to 30 minutes, well - some would call it pork. For every piece of pork, there is a good reason, or an excuse....depending on who gets the pork!

Of course, according to the DOT your state did get the money anyway, but it is not earmarked for that bridge - so it is your state friends there that you can yell out - you already have out money!

"Alaska's DOT is 'leaning' toward alternative ferry options citing bridge costs (August 2007), despite having received the funds from the Federal Government."
"Alaska's governor Sarah Palin."Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer","

Of course, Alaska is the only state in the Union (correct me if I am wrong) where each citizen gets a cut of the money from "our" oil (the common resources of our country).
"For many people, the most beautiful thing in Alaska is a check the state sends to citizens every year. It doesn't matter whether they're bankers or unemployed, lifetime residents or newborns — everyone gets the same amount. This year's check, handed out in October, is expected to total about $1,000."

Some would call that pork.........as I said, one persons pork is another person entitlement!
Anyway, the point remains that money spent on alternative energy development will hopefully pay off - even better than getting to the ketchikan airport a little faster!

 

[reelwork02]

that our Politicos caved will be corrected next election ;-)

I would be cautious of some of your sources...the bridge would have been slightly shorter than the golden gate, and also not as high, but lets grab stats from different bridges just to skew the perception. I am sure if they were going to replace a 120 year old brooklyn bridge they would make it a bit taller to allow increased maritime traffic. But the Ketchikan bridge would have been much shorter than the Mackinac bridge, connecting St Ignace (pop 2,700) to Mackinaw city (pop 900). That just doesn't make a good story now does it?

Any way here is the location for official info on our bridge RIP http://dot.alaska.gov/stwdplng/projectinfo/ser/Gravina/index.shtml

As far as the Perm fund...was the only option to vote for that kept the money out of the state legislators hands...Personally wanted infrastructure (like the bridge) that would have led to long term job growth. I would give it up in a heartbeat if there was enough private land here to afford a woodlot.

 

[ChimneyQuest]

>I would be cautious of some of your sources...the bridge would have been slightly shorter than the golden gate, and also >not as high, but lets grab stats from different bridges just to skew the perception. I am sure if they were going to replace >a 120 year old brooklyn bridge they would make it a bit taller to allow increased maritime traffic. But the Ketchikan >bridge would have been much shorter than the Mackinac bridge, connecting St Ignace (pop 2,700) to Mackinaw city (pop >900). That just doesn’t make a good story now does it?


As a Michigander, I'll point out that the Mackinaw bridge is a vital link between two peninsulas. There is no island involved and the bridge is used by residents of the Upper Peninsula as well as myriad sportsmen and tourists, freight trucks, etc. Beyond the towns you cite are small cities such as Marquette (pop 20,000)
As a child I crossed it on a journey from Michigan to North Dakota.

Regardless, just chiming in to say that I too am a big supporter of this energy bill. As global warming accelerates this bill should be just the beginning or its too little, too late.

Carbon neutrality is a big part of my interest in heating with wood!

 

[webbie]

Don't know why the bridge is under discussion - as mentioned, Alaska got most of the money for it anyway! So build it (man, it will take a LOT of maintenance to keep it going!)

As mentioned, very little pork is something that will not benefit someone - in fact, that is the very nature of it....it benefits people! Many people here here think that the ethanol pork is pork.......

Well, let's see what happens with this energy bill.

PS. One thing about us East Coasters - we pay the tolls on many of our highways and bridges....try getting into NYC - it will cost $6 or more! And that is with millions crossing. If we tried to pay for it with a couple thousand folks a day crossing, it would probably be $20 or more.

 

[webbie]

Energy bill passed 53-42 in the Senate - BUT, that is not enough to do away with a Bush Veto (which was promised).

Bush does not want the tax breaks for oil companies reduced. Other Senate GOP'ers do not like the "renewable" energy mandates. Still others are against ethanol subsidies.

My opinion - yes, the third one has some merit (don't overdo the ethanol pork), but that other two are signals that the old "regime" of "more energy, more pollution and profits" does not want to go down easy. Most people will agree that we need radical change on the Energy Front. To stop a bill like this means more of the same as recently (very little change).

Leaders are supposed to lead.....

Look up your Senators and Reps and see if they voted on this the way you would want them to. I think a lot of GOP leaders are out of touch, not knowing that most Americans see the problem(s) and solutions as something that we have to get a grip on.

 

[webbie]

Just so it is clear as to what interests are lobbying against it:
"a broad array of opponents, including cattlemen, coal producers and multinational oil companies, are lining up to block it."

 

[DiscoInferno]

>I would be cautious of some of your sources...the bridge would have been slightly shorter than the golden gate, and also >not as high, but lets grab stats from different bridges just to skew the perception. I am sure if they were going to replace >a 120 year old brooklyn bridge they would make it a bit taller to allow increased maritime traffic. But the Ketchikan >bridge would have been much shorter than the Mackinac bridge, connecting St Ignace (pop 2,700) to Mackinaw city (pop >900). That just doesn’t make a good story now does it?


As a Michigander, I'll point out that the Mackinaw bridge is a vital link between two peninsulas. There is no island involved and the bridge is used by residents of the Upper Peninsula as well as myriad sportsmen and tourists, freight trucks, etc. Beyond the towns you cite are small cities such as Marquette (pop 20,000)
As a child I crossed it on a journey from Michigan to North Dakota.

Really, how irrelevant to name the two cities immediately at either end of the bridge, as if the road ends in either one. I'll add that the Might Mac sits on interstate highway 75 (goes from Canada border to Florida) and about 12,000 a day, or 4,000,000 a year, cross the bridge. Also, the bridge was paid for with bonds, which were paid off by the tolls. You think that's going to happen in Alaska? Probably have to cost $100 per crossing! But they're so used to having everything handed to them by taxpayers elsewhere thanks to their porkmasters in Congress. Ted Stevens in particular has to be the biggest "conservative" hypocrite in congress.