This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
- Why give the public only 20 days to respond to the draft environmental impact statement the Secretary of the Interior gets 18 months to put together? [Section 112(c)(3)(D), page 17, line 24]
- Why set a minimum acreage of 200,000 acres for the first lease sale? Is there a solid revenue reason for this requirement, or is it a way to make sure only larger companies can afford to buy into the prime drilling territory? [Section 113(d); p. 21 line 21]
- So does Section 121's prohibition on exportation of any oil or gas produced under leases issued under this bill represent your repudiation of NAFTA and other international free trade agreements? [Sec. 121, p. 41]
- Why, for all the text dedicated to producing more oil and clean coal (and yes, renewable biofuel from sources like algae, for which the Lake Herman energy lobby thanks you), does the bill make only two brief and general mentions of increasing energy efficiency [Section 301(b)(3–4)]?
F’ing USD
-
So a friend of mine made this rap a few years back, and I have to tell you
I have friends over the years who went there and tell the same boring
stories, LOL.
16 hours ago
Guess I'm not too bright, but what does "Whiter Conservation" mean? Or am I just being nit-picky?
ReplyDeleteAlso, isn't 20 days a standard response time for this sort of thing?
That is a good question anon. What is "Whiter Conservation"? Everyone is talking right now about finding other sources of energy and using biofuels, but what is that going to do for the average minimum wage worker that can't afford to buy a vehicle that can handle the new fuels? Or will the industry have an available "upgrade kit" that a person can purchase that isn't going to break the bank??? My family and I are putting off purchasing a new vehicle because of this sort of thing.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it refers to preserving the polar ice caps.
ReplyDeleteOr maybe it is just a typo..."Whither" perhaps?
That's me not knowing how to type. "Whither" indeed! Thanks for catching that... and my apologies for the confusion!
ReplyDelete20 days as standard response time? I don't know -- is it? Maybe it is enough time, assuming the hearings and study leading up to the Secretary's report are transparent... unlike the secret meetings Cheney had with oil execs to form Bush's energy policy.
ReplyDeleteboy, just think how much gas would cost if Dick hadn't had all those secret meetings.
ReplyDeleteIf I know Chaney like I pretend to - I know he had the nations best interest in mind when the met.
Is there something about increasing energy production that is in opposition to efficiency? I personally don't care where we get the energy, or if it meets the greenies standards of cleanliness. We just need to fast-track action on it now. Personally I like Hydrogen and Nuclear but neither will avert the economic meltdown since I can't shovel uranium into my Mazda or plant a windmill on top. We need something that will wind up as gas and that means oil and coal.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the evil policy the oil execs had Bush/Cheney do? Those meetings were something made out of nothing. Should they have been meeting with the Sierra Club to discuss US energy?!
If we are to achieve energy independence, we must not only minimize our individual energy consumption rates, but find and exploit new domestic energy sources, improve the efficiency of systems that produce and consume energy, and see to it that corporations innovate and make well-deserved profits without ripping the working people off.
ReplyDeleteThe genie is out of the bottle as far as using energy goes. Many of the world's former third world countries are waking up and moving up and needing more energy. Yes, we should use energy wisely, but those of you who think we need to go back to the days of yore as far as energy use are dreaming. Our creator put many resources on our planet for our use, and it's up to us to use them wisely, yes, but USE them.
ReplyDeleteWe need to tap into our available resources while at the same time looking for improved and new ways to create energy. It's not an either or. It's both.
The Chicken Little's who are crying global warming, can't drill here or there, can't build nuclear, can't build new refineries are helping to create the mess we are in now. Going green is good to a point, but all of a sudden this has become a religion to some and isn't helping anything in the long run.
Personally, I grew up not letting the tap water run and run, turning off lights when we left a room, no air conditioning (still done't have it as I prefer open windows and fresh air), not wasting food, etc, and I still operate that way.
But completely changing the way we fuel our vehicles, heat our homes, etc is a long ways off and would be impossible for most people to implement immediately anyway. Conservation goes only so far. We need to use our own resources in the interest of preserving our own nation!
Nonnie
Phaedrus: "Is there something about increasing energy production that is in opposition to efficiency?"
ReplyDeleteActually, the 1990s would seem to say yes. Lots of cheap fuel, zero progress on fuel efficiency. And now fuel supply is getting tight, and people are finding ways to use less.
With whom to meet for energy policy? How about everyone, you, me, and the Sierra Club, and not just the folks whose only motive is profit?
CAH: Why not you me and everybody...because if it wasn't private energy companies wouldn't have been willing to be forthright if they came to the table at all. There would have been far too much exposure to damaging their own companies. Every word a CEO makes has repercussions and it would be reckless to have a wide-open discussion on any problems the industry is having.
ReplyDeletethat's why
furthermore, just because it didn't happen during the 90's does not show cause and effect, only correlation. If congress had not sat on their hands as far as CAFE standards that whole time (among other things that should have been done) then it wouldn't have been limited to the existing market forces. The best thing would have been full tax write-offs for alternative car and energy development. "Big Oil" is taxed enough that those incentives would have carried massive weight.
ReplyDelete