Source: Energy bill next week
By: Jeanne CummingsMay 5, 2010 07:19 PM EDT
Politico
In a high-stakes move, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) are planning to forge ahead with or without Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and introduce an energy bill next week, according to sources familiar with the planning.
In addition to the uncertainty about Graham’s status on the bill, Kerry and Lieberman are gambling that the dramatic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico will help, rather than hurt, momentum for the legislation.
That’s not a sure thing. As described in interviews, the reform package includes provisions that allow an expansion of offshore drilling and generous revenue sharing for coastal states that allow it. Lindsey told POLITICO those provisions were essential to his support.
Since the explosion at the BP rig began pumping millions of gallons of oil into the gulf, a host of Democratic and Republican senators have expressed skepticism if not outright opposition to the idea of expanding offshore test wells.
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) threatened to filibuster the legislation. "If offshore drilling off the coast of the continental United States is part of it, this legislation is not going anywhere,” he said.
According to sources familiar with the senators’ deliberations, Kerry and Lieberman have concluded that the crisis in the gulf – which is likely to get worse before it gets better – will focus the public’s attention on the nation’s dependency on oil and facilitate the debate about reforming the energy sector. Read More
It’s irresponsible for our leaders to make reactionary decisions about the future of energy in this country based on what has happened in the Gulf of Mexico. Certainly that accident has turned into a significant mess and I don’t think anyone would deny that. However, it’s just as reckless to abandon these sources of energy when we have nothing to replace it with. To date, we can’t put sunshine or wind into the tanks of our cars. Taxing current sources of energy when there aren’t viable replacements only hurt working families in this country. But that seems to be a common theme as of late. Elitists continue to advocate for more expensive food and more expensive energy. We need to look at different energy sources as we move into the future, but common sense needs a seat at the table in these discussions.
Showing posts with label oil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oil. Show all posts
Friday, May 7, 2010
Monday, June 2, 2008
Unintended Consequences
Allen Shirley: Law of unintended consequences
For too long, we as Americans have been held hostage by the liberal left and environmentalists involving our energy needs. Now, Ken Midkiff (Globe, May 25) of the Sierra Club conveniently denies that his kind have any more blame for our current energy mess than the average citizen. I say (lifting my arm above my head), “It’s a little late for the shoes, I’ll try to save my watch.”
Although Mr. Midkiff is correct that there is no “one” source to blame for this mess, it is absurd to act as if liberals in Congress and environmental groups have not led the pack in preventing America from attaining energy independence. The law of unintended consequences is the rule of the day in demonstrating the mess these groups have helped achieve.
More than a decade ago, environmental and liberal groups insisted that chemical agents must be added to gasoline to reduce emissions. Now we find these agents pollute ground water and had to be removed for public safety — the law of unintended consequences. Read More
The law of unintended consequences rears has reared it’s ugly head in several other areas as well. One of the reasons that we have seen such intense forest fires in the last several years is due to logging being stopped or slowed on public lands. The same thing will happen if grazing is stopped on public lands. Things like these need to be managed. It is imperative that we always look at cause and effect when making decisions such as drilling for oil in the United States.
For too long, we as Americans have been held hostage by the liberal left and environmentalists involving our energy needs. Now, Ken Midkiff (Globe, May 25) of the Sierra Club conveniently denies that his kind have any more blame for our current energy mess than the average citizen. I say (lifting my arm above my head), “It’s a little late for the shoes, I’ll try to save my watch.”
Although Mr. Midkiff is correct that there is no “one” source to blame for this mess, it is absurd to act as if liberals in Congress and environmental groups have not led the pack in preventing America from attaining energy independence. The law of unintended consequences is the rule of the day in demonstrating the mess these groups have helped achieve.
More than a decade ago, environmental and liberal groups insisted that chemical agents must be added to gasoline to reduce emissions. Now we find these agents pollute ground water and had to be removed for public safety — the law of unintended consequences. Read More
The law of unintended consequences rears has reared it’s ugly head in several other areas as well. One of the reasons that we have seen such intense forest fires in the last several years is due to logging being stopped or slowed on public lands. The same thing will happen if grazing is stopped on public lands. Things like these need to be managed. It is imperative that we always look at cause and effect when making decisions such as drilling for oil in the United States.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Energy Independence
Don't Give Up on Energy Independence
By ROBERT MCFARLANE
May 7, 2008; Page A17
This week in Congress, efforts are underway to roll back goals enacted just last year to encourage the development of biofuels. This could damage – perhaps irretrievably – the substantial progress we've made toward relieving the threat posed by our reliance on foreign oil.
Our country is in the midst of a vigorous, healthy argument over whether the apparent appeal of biofuels as a means of reducing our reliance on foreign oil hasn't had the unintended effect of driving an increase in food prices throughout the world. We must base this debate on established facts, and emerge with renewed commitment to measures to relieve a historic threat to our national security.
Let's focus first on what is true in the food-versus-fuel argument. Read More
Energy independence, like a domestic food supply, is vital to our national security. Agriculture has stepped up to provide both. Ultimately, the price of the oil that we are importing has caused the price of food to rise along with most everything else. The US has an incredible supply of untapped oil resources. We shouldn’t be risking the future of this nation on pipelines in the Middle East.
By ROBERT MCFARLANE
May 7, 2008; Page A17
This week in Congress, efforts are underway to roll back goals enacted just last year to encourage the development of biofuels. This could damage – perhaps irretrievably – the substantial progress we've made toward relieving the threat posed by our reliance on foreign oil.
Our country is in the midst of a vigorous, healthy argument over whether the apparent appeal of biofuels as a means of reducing our reliance on foreign oil hasn't had the unintended effect of driving an increase in food prices throughout the world. We must base this debate on established facts, and emerge with renewed commitment to measures to relieve a historic threat to our national security.
Let's focus first on what is true in the food-versus-fuel argument. Read More
Energy independence, like a domestic food supply, is vital to our national security. Agriculture has stepped up to provide both. Ultimately, the price of the oil that we are importing has caused the price of food to rise along with most everything else. The US has an incredible supply of untapped oil resources. We shouldn’t be risking the future of this nation on pipelines in the Middle East.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)