Who blocked higher fuel mileage standards?
Who blocked clean energy subsidies?
Who invaded the country with the second biggest reserves?

Hint: It wasn’t the Dems.

If we’d listened to Jimmy Carter (D) we’d be import free.

Obama’s proposal plan would help to get us off oil — to make it irrelevant, by moving to PHEVs, cutting oil subsidies, extending clean energy tax credits — you know, real solutions.

The Republican plan is to tell the American people bald faced lies, and attempt to make a political gain out the of the lies, while they lay prostate before their oil lords.

By the way, rational policies are unpassable and unsignable because Republicans block votes and threaten vetoes.

Get real, Paul. It’s OK to be a Republican, I guess, but it’s not OK to back them when they’re wrong, immoral, untruthful or otherwise unethical — which, unfortunately, seems to be most of the time for the last 7.5 years.
That’s probably why they’re turning into the incredible shrinking Party — you can’t fool all the people all the time, as a famous Republican once said.

> while they lay prostate before their oil lords.

We haven’t (quite) had to lay out our prostates yet, but I think the oil rich countries do have us by another part of the male anatomy

Prediction: This bill is going to sound very good to the voters paying $4 for gas. You need some kind of counter offer that’s useful in achieving your goals while also sounding good to that same voter.

What it all comes down to is allowing the oil companies to make a lot more money. Open everything to drilling and the oil companies can then cherry pick the most profitable deposits. Who cares if it solves our energy crisis. It’s really no different than when the Republicans backed a plan that would have allowed timber companies to cut the last old growth on our National Forests. Back in the 1980’s when the last of the Pacific NW old growth was coming under the saw; we had a choice, either leave some big trees for the future or get a few more years of big profits before finding something else to build our homes with.

BTW: Here is a columnist at the Houston Chronicle who claims wind energy is the most highly subsidized way of generation. Loren Steffy wrote continuously during the recent wind energy conference in Houston about how it is such a poor way of generation. He specifically mentions a recent study from the University of North Texas which claims wind energy receives 70 million in government subsidies for every 100 million of private investment. Surely some of this is the $4.00 fee we now pay to build new transmission lines from west Texas. Of course all of our transmission lines were originally built and paid for by an industry that at the time was a government protected monopoly.

Hmmmmm. Save the world for $4.00 a month added to a $150 electric bill or burn it all to hell? Tough choice.

Heard of this study?

http://www.chron.com/ disp/ story.mpl/ business/ steffy/ 5896507.html

Lets see how hot the planet can get and how many species we can wipe out.

Of course, very few voters will be climate only. Most will vote because of the economy or the war. It will continue to frustrate Democrats that Republicans have the upper hand on the energy issue. The Democratic leadership in both houses knows the Republican bills would pass if brought to the floor. A majority of Americans favor a more aggressive use of our own resources. The people understand energy independence.

The Republicans do not ignore efficiency. The Republican Senate bill contains unprecedented support for plug-in hybrid deployment. That’s 21st Century efficiency that makes 20th Century Cafe regulations irrelevant. Think in terms of where we’ll be in 2040. By then the automotive fleet will be almost all plug-in or EV. All new energy production will be non fossil. This will actually happen much sooner.

McCain will get increasing support for his policy of maintaining affordable energy while wholeheartedly transitioning to carbon free energy.

There are many good studies gathering dust on USFWS’s shelves that detail the destruction of oil development on Alaska’s north slope despite the industry’s assurance that all is well and that their development footprint will melt away, like their ice roads, each spring. The roads and pads for producing wells as well as the pads for facilities, are built on gravel mined from local rivers. Many, many miles of rivers have been turned into linear gravel pits causing massive, irrepairable habitat damage and loss of fisheries. Nesting bird numbers were cut in half, 50% declines, in oil producing areas due to increased nest predation and human disturbance (everything nests on the ground up there - no trees). Disturbance from aircraft, especially helicopters, has caused massive abandonment by sensitive birds such as geese and brant of oil producing and oil exploration regions.

Here in Texas and on the Chenier Plain of Louisiana, oil production through fluid and gas extraction has caused subsidence and thus very large amounts of coastal wetland loss through submergence of marshland. It is the number one causation of coastal wetland loss in Texas, for example 15,000 acres of tidal marsh and cypress swamp submerged around the Texaco field near Beaumont alone. Not to mention the losses to wetland caused by pipeline construction and navigation channels.

Unless the oil can be magically made to rise out of the ground of its own volition and float away to the refineries; those folks in Florida are damn smart to say “Hell No” to the oil industry. I’m sure plenty of those folks drive down I-10 through Louisiana and Texas and say to themselves, “Never, Never, Never in my lifetime will I submit to this”.

And then there’s the destruction being wrought by the coal bed methane boom out west. Large areas of what was just 10 years ago prime wildlife habitat are simply becoming gas production sacrifice zones.

And yet, I read over and over that the only thing that concerns those crazy environmentalists are oil spills and those don’t happen any more so this is all just a war of words. That’s BS! When will the press get a clue?

One cubic kilometer down three kilometers and generators turn 10 Twh and you ship the ice to the dry areas for fresh water. Rather simple.

‘Is what we get out of closing off areas of offshore to oil drilling worth the political capitol this is costing.’

It’s time democrates open up the offshore areas to oil drilling and ANWR also. It’s not worth the political pain. Many of these areas will be closed off by the nearest states anyway. It will show good faith that those things that need to be done to reduce global warming and increases in greenhouse gases is not about control, but it is to solve a legitimate problem. If you believe the reports that it will take many years to get drilling rigs to these areas and these oil rigs will only pump 100 000 barrels a day anyway, what’s the worry about the drilling, it won’t be that extensive anyway.

There are bigger problems that need to be solved that offshore drilling and ANWR. It’s a distraction more than a help to the real solutions that we need to attack. A hundred years from now, or the next 50 generations, will those generations ask us ‘did you stop offshore drilling’ or will they ask us ‘did you stop global warming.’ We have to pick our battles better.

No, the question should be:

What do we get out of opening these offshore areas to oil drilling?

1) Unacceptable risk of environmental damage (that’s why it will never happen in California)
2) Pretending we are doing something about oil prices, when it won’t make any difference (even McCain said it was a “psychological” help)
3) Focus of attention away from real solutions

1) Unacceptable risk of environmental damage (that’s why it will never happen in California)
2) Pretending we are doing something about oil prices, when it won’t make any difference (even McCain said it was a “psychological” help)
3) Focus of attention away from real solutions”

Numbers 2 and 3 may be true if all you do is agree to opening those areas to offshore oil drilling. However, if the approach you take is to use it as a bargaining chip to get the things you want, and you don’t agree to it unless you get enough of those things to make it worth it, then it serves a useful purpose, quite the opposite of numbers 2 and 3.

I think Ronald addresses #1.

The more general point is that people, and politicians, that believe global warming is a threat can’t expect those that don’t to make most of the sacrifices, whether financial or political. If anything, you’d expect such interests, if they truly are serious about the problem and not simply grabbing power, to bend over backwards to compromise in other, less critical, areas in order to achieve real climate progress. I just don’t see it happening.

Most of these suggestion from Boehner (many of which McCain is on board with) will be insufficient at best and lead to another 911 type crisis as an excuse for invading Iran or Venezuela in 2011 or 2012 to get their oil too (see recent Iraqi/U.S. Oil company deal). Especially after oil shale and coal gasification and carbon sequestration are proven to be technologically, and/or economically infeasible and unscalable.

The single nuclear power sentence is especially disturbing and sends me over the edge. Anyone reading this site want Yucca Mountains 2 and 3 in their backyard to store the nuclear waste from 50-100 nuclear power plants for 500,000 years and a few hundred billion dollars? Anyone want to spend $10 billiion on each one and wait 8-12 years for it to just begin to pay back the energy required to build it? Geez!!!

If the Republicans get serious about true alternative/carbon free energy like solar, wind, geothermal, and wave; and also about conservation technologies, I will listen. I would like nothing better than to be wrong but I think it will be a long wait.

BTW - Negotiation implies two parties giving and taking to reach common ground. The Decider went back on his campaign promise in 2001 and began bludgeoning all opposition relentlessly (and many times illegally) to get his way until his legacy started haunting him late last year. Now he wants to at least give the appearance of playing nice and negotiating in fairness. Thanks God there are only 149 days until 01/20/2009!