3041Re: U.S. Energy Policy
- May 3, 2005Thanks, Chris. Here's the link to the House version:
Raise the CAFE standards! Or not:
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Roxanne Boyer <chris.rox@s...> wrote:
> The energy bill is dragging on because it has too much stuff in
it. It needs to be broken into parts, but that's not the way our
system works. I was told in High School Government class that the
law making process was intentionally made slow and inefficient to
prevent radical change - I see that. Some of the major parts of the
Bill that are in the limelight are:
> 1) Energy Production Tax Incentives - This means if you drill and
produce oil on your land, you get a tax incentive - sort of like an
agricultural incentive for farmers. This is supposed to improves the
economics for "marginal" wells - wells that may produce only a couple
of barrels per day at a cost of ~$25/barrel. It will put money into
the hands of several mineral rights holding companies and domestic
drilling companies, rather than into the hands of foreigners. In my
opinion, this part of the bill wastes our money trying to maintain a
dying system. It would be better to tax foreign oil and invest the
money in the development of a new, sustainable energy infrastructure
> 2) Renewable Fuels Subsidy - This part will pay some money for
putting ethanol or biodiesel into fuels. It is supposed to help
Midwest corn farmers increase their market. It may do some good in
getting the biofuels infrastructure in place so that costs will drop
and eventually the program will not need subsidizing.
> 3) Clean Coal Technology - The US has more coal energy than it
has oil or natural gas. We could shift more of our energy usage to
coal. Coal is dirty and very polluting. Technology exists that can
clean up the coal exhaust, however, it is not economical. So, like
the renewable fuels subsidy, this part will also subsidize power
produced from "clean" coal. What this bill also does is allows
polluting plants to continue to be built and operated. Mercury from
coal power plants has contaminated most Texas rivers and the gulf
coast so that it is a health hazard to eat fish from the area. The
bill is a start, however, we need to stop polluting!
> 4) MTBE Producers Protection - The government mandated that MTBE
be put into fuel (Clean Air Act). Now it has been determined that
MTBE can mix with groundwater and it tastes bad (no bad health
effects have been discovered). Lawyers want to get rich suing MTBE
manufacturers - a repeat of the asbestos cases. Companies that
produced MTBE want protection from such lawyers. In my opinion, the
companies only did what the government told them to do; no one will
get a dime except the lawyers; and it will only hurt American
companies, resulting in job layoffs. Companies who manufactured MTBE
(which is just about every American oil and chemical company) should
not be penalized for it. Even more, MTBE did do a great deal to
clean up our air and we will have to find something to replace it.
> 5) Permission to drill in national wilderness preserves - Oil has
been found in some federal lands that prohibit drilling. Why have
preserves if we aren't going to preserve them?
> What the bill does not contain is a long term energy plan. It is a
short-term hold-out, sort of like taking out one loan to pay
another. We do need energy solutions. I think individuals,
communities and companies will find them long before the government
can do anything about it. HREG is a start.
> jsbalkite <jsbalkite@s...> wrote:
> Hi, I'm James - new to the group. I work for United Space Alliance
> (NASA contractor) and I promote Green Mountain Energy (pollution-
> residential/commercial energy) on the side. If you're interested in
> learning more I'd be more than happy to assist. Disclaimer - I get
> commission for people that switch (free for you) to our pollution-
> free, renewable energy.
> I'm writing because I'm really disapointed with the President's
> energy policy. I'm even more depressed about the bill that passed
> House which made Bush look like a tree-hugger.
> To get to my point, I'm looking for any good, factual (non-
> analyses of the proposed policies. I need to write an economic
> paper for this macroeconomic class and my professor is quite the
> market conservative who doesn't really care for environmentalists.
> I need numbers.
> By the way, where's the outrage on this board regarding these
> policies catering to the status-quo, non-renewable energy
> and practically ignoring conservation and our crack-like addiction
> [foreign] oil?
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
- << Previous post in topic