• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Cap and Trade Bill

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I was hoping to read the bill and, as it was voted on yesterday, by Obama's promise to us it should of been posted on the web for us all to see on Monday. I can't seem to find it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
I was hoping to read the bill and, as it was voted on yesterday, by Obama's promise to us it should of been posted on the web for us all to see on Monday. I can't seem to find it.

Wasn't that on bills he was going to sign?
Obama doesn't control the agenda of the House- Pelosi does...

And according to Markey yesterday in the debates it is all on and has been on the House Energy (?) Committee website for several weeks- with any changes added daily....The last 300 page amendment to the bill- was added yesterday....

It isn't going to really matter- as the Energy Bill that comes out this year- I believe will end up being a comingling of the House and Senate Bill...And I'm not sure the Cap and Trade section will survive the Senate...
 

redbrand

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
I was hoping to read the bill and, as it was voted on yesterday, by Obama's promise to us it should of been posted on the web for us all to see on Monday. I can't seem to find it.

Bammer did run his campaign on the vague promises of "HOPE" and "CHANGE." Looks like he's living up to part of it anyway; we are HOPING to be able to read these bills before they're voted on as promised but, apparantly, he CHANGED his mind on that :wink: . Makes a guy feel kind of sorry for the gullible idiots that lapped up this snake's hype :x .
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
redbrand said:
Sandhusker said:
I was hoping to read the bill and, as it was voted on yesterday, by Obama's promise to us it should of been posted on the web for us all to see on Monday. I can't seem to find it.

Bammer did run his campaign on the vague promises of "HOPE" and "CHANGE." Looks like he's living up to part of it anyway; we are HOPING to be able to read these bills before they're voted on as promised but, apparantly, he CHANGED his mind on that :wink: . Makes a guy feel kind of sorry for the gullible idiots that lapped up this snake's hype :x .

Redbrand, you don't have time to wrangle with the air children here, you need to get to work and get some fence put up! Get off the puter, put down that crown, and get to work! :wink:
 

leanin' H

Well-known member
NEW YORK (AP) - In addition to raising energy prices, the climate legislation that's winding through Congress would create a parallel financial system with a carbon-based currency.

The House on Friday narrowly passed landmark legislation meant to curb greenhouse gas emissions and create an energy-efficient economy, voting 219-212. President Barack Obama on Saturday urged senators to follow suit.

Everyone from small farmers to nuclear energy companies would be forced to re-evaluate their place in the new order. Power plants, factories and refineries would feel the first impact if the federal government moves ahead with plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and by about 80 percent near the end of the century.

The sharply debated bill's fate is unclear in the Senate. A major struggle is expected with 60 votes needed to overcome a certain Republican filibuster.

How much it will affect other industries is still a matter of intense debate, though the primary winners and losers are already emerging.

___

The Winners:

Solar, wind, geothermal and other renewable energy companies, including nuclear, are some of the obvious winners in a carbon economy.

In addition to the billions of federal stimulus dollars they expect to receive, those industries can expect to see a huge boost in investment as utilities and power companies are forced to cut their carbon emissions. Companies like Florida Power & Light Co., Arizona Public Service, Southern California Edison and others are already investing in solar farms and other renewable energy projects, and they'll likely spend even more to increase the mix of carbon-neutral energy sources.

Farmers also will find new ways to make money in a carbon economy. Carbon consultants like the International Carbon Bank & Exchange in Florida see huge potential in agriculture for managing carbon emissions. Farmers that till their soil differently or apply new environmental techniques can get money by cooperating with a polluter as a carbon "offset."

Owners of large tracts of forest land also will get a lot of interest from the business community. Like farmers, environmental experts see them as a huge player in the carbon economy because of their natural ability to absorb carbon.

Louis Blumberg, director of climate change for the Nature Conservancy's California chapter, envisions a system in which forest owners could make money simply by signing an agreement to cut down fewer trees for lumber.

The Nature Conservancy did just that last year with the Conservation Fund, a nonprofit agency that owns about 24,000 acres of redwood and douglas fir forest northwest of San Francisco. The groups changed the logging schedule on the property, and the fund expects to receive about $2 million from Pacific Gas and Electric, which participates in a regional climate initiative similar to the one that the Waxman-Markey bill would create around the country.

"This is really a model of what can happen," Blumberg said. "Property owners everywhere want to figure out a way to be part of this."

___

The Losers:

Anyone who pays an electric bill would likely feel the impact of climate legislation. Utilities will try to raise rates as they invest in cleaner-yet-more-expensive energy sources. Some have already announced plans to do so. Petroleum companies also may try to import more of their refined gas and heating oil from countries with no carbon law, which will raise costs.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency both issued estimates of how the climate bill would affect energy costs.

The CBO estimated the cost at $175 a year for the average household. The EPA forecasts $80 to $110 a year.

The American Petroleum Institute disputed both estimates, saying the bill could cost the average household up to $3,300 by 2020.

"That is more than a few postage stamps," API President Jack Gerard said in a slap at Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass. Markey has compared new energy costs to a postage stamp per day.

API has tried to paint the bill as a job killer that would choke off efforts to pull the economy out of recession.

"While we support creating new jobs, the legislation offers an unnecessary and false choice of eliminating good jobs in the oil and natural gas industry to create green jobs," Gerard said.

Oil and gas companies have spent record amounts of money lobbying Congress recently as they try to blunt the impact of the bill.

Refiners, in particular, say the inherent costs in the legislation could shift some fuel production outside the U.S., where refiners would not be bound by its provisions.

The National Petrochemical & Refiners Association also says the legislation hurts them two different ways, by capping emissions from refineries as well as emissions from the fuels they produce. But refiners say they are not recieving enough credits.

The association says the legislation could cost U.S. refiners as much as $58 billion a year.

Coal miners also are worried because it might cut into demand for coal, which is loaded with carbon. Mining also uses a lot of energy, so the rise in energy costs would hurt their bottom line.

The country gets about half of its electricity from coal. Some utilities that rely on coal to generate much of their electricity worried about initial versions of the legislation that they said would lead to skyrocketing rates. The current version will mean much smaller increases, they said.

Columbus, Ohio-based American Electric Power said the legislation will send rates about 25 percent higher by 2015; the initial version would have meant rate hikes of 65 percent to 75 percent.

Another big utility that relies on coal, Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke Energy, said the legislation creates regulatory certainty for an industry that spends billions on capital expenditures annually. If Congress does not act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will after the U.S. Supreme Court gave the agency authority to regulate emissions under the Clean Air Act, Jim Rogers, Duke's chairman, president and CEO, said in a letter to U.S. Rep. James Clyburn obtained by The Associated Press.

"While the EPA may have the technical expertise to create environmentally sound regulations, it lacks the explicit legislative authority to craft an environmentally sound program that minimizes costs to consumers and our economy," the letter said. "So leaving the EPA with the responsibility to develop and implement a program that will touch every aspect of our daily lives is neither appropriate nor in the best interest of our nation."

Rogers said the initial legislation would have required consumers in states where fossil fuels make up the majority of electric generation to pay double _ first to purchase the allowances to keep current generation operational and then for investments in low-carbon technology.

Wayne Leonard, chairman and president of New Orleans-based Entergy, said his company is looking at its alternatives such as biomass and expanding production from its nuclear plants to cut emissions.


So while our economy sucks and fuel continues to rise we decide a great plan would be to force HIGHER energy costs across the board! We decide that destroying high paying jobs in the coal industry while unemployment is 10% makes wonderful sense! NUTS!!!! :shock: :roll:
 

redbrand

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
redbrand said:
Sandhusker said:
I was hoping to read the bill and, as it was voted on yesterday, by Obama's promise to us it should of been posted on the web for us all to see on Monday. I can't seem to find it.

Bammer did run his campaign on the vague promises of "HOPE" and "CHANGE." Looks like he's living up to part of it anyway; we are HOPING to be able to read these bills before they're voted on as promised but, apparantly, he CHANGED his mind on that :wink: . Makes a guy feel kind of sorry for the gullible idiots that lapped up this snake's hype :x .

Redbrand, you don't have time to wrangle with the air children here, you need to get to work and get some fence put up! Get off the puter, put down that crown, and get to work! :wink:

You make a good point. Time to get back to the real world and annoy liberals by working hard and being happy! :D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Farmers also will find new ways to make money in a carbon economy. Carbon consultants like the International Carbon Bank & Exchange in Florida see huge potential in agriculture for managing carbon emissions. Farmers that till their soil differently or apply new environmental techniques can get money by cooperating with a polluter as a carbon "offset."

Owners of large tracts of forest land also will get a lot of interest from the business community. Like farmers, environmental experts see them as a huge player in the carbon economy because of their natural ability to absorb carbon.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency both issued estimates of how the climate bill would affect energy costs.

The CBO estimated the cost at $175 a year for the average household. The EPA forecasts $80 to $110 a year.

Also EPA says that coal usage and coal jobs will greatly EXPAND in the next 10 years- and then even later as more "clean coal" technology is used in the production of electricity that will replace some of the oil based energy now used- that keeps us captive to the Chavez's and Arabs of the world...

June 22, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of heat-trapping gases that cause global warming, but President Obama's plan to fight climate change would result in the nation burning more coal a decade from now than it does today.

The administration's plan, the centerpiece of a 700-page legislative package, proposes strict limits on emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide.

But to attract vital support from congressional Democrats representing heavily coal-dependent areas, authors of the legislation, including Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills), have made a series of concessions that substantially soften its effect on coal -- at least over the next decade or so.

As a result, the Environmental Protection Agency projects that even if the emissions limits go into effect, the U.S. would use more carbon-dioxide-heavy coal in 2020 than it did in 2005.

That's because the bill gives utilities a financial incentive to keep burning coal by joining the cap-and-trade system -- a kind of marketplace where polluters could reduce their emissions on paper by buying pollution reductions created by others. These so-called offsets, for example, could be created and sold by farmers who planted trees, which filter carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.


Environmental groups also say the bill could set off a boom in the construction of new coal plants because of provisions that would restrict legal efforts to block such projects.

Leading Democrats -- and some major conservation groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council -- say the moves have helped attract coal-district Democrats to support the bill without undermining the plan's environmental goals.

"We've ensured a role for coal" in the nation's energy future, said Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), one of the leading coal champions in the House.
 

leanin' H

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Farmers also will find new ways to make money in a carbon economy. Carbon consultants like the International Carbon Bank & Exchange in Florida see huge potential in agriculture for managing carbon emissions. Farmers that till their soil differently or apply new environmental techniques can get money by cooperating with a polluter as a carbon "offset."

Owners of large tracts of forest land also will get a lot of interest from the business community. Like farmers, environmental experts see them as a huge player in the carbon economy because of their natural ability to absorb carbon.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency both issued estimates of how the climate bill would affect energy costs.

The CBO estimated the cost at $175 a year for the average household. The EPA forecasts $80 to $110 a year.

Also EPA says that coal usage and coal jobs will greatly EXPAND in the next 10 years- and then even later as more "clean coal" technology is used in the production of electricity that will replace some of the oil based energy now used- that keeps us captive to the Chavez's and Arabs of the world...

June 22, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of heat-trapping gases that cause global warming, but President Obama's plan to fight climate change would result in the nation burning more coal a decade from now than it does today.

The administration's plan, the centerpiece of a 700-page legislative package, proposes strict limits on emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide.

But to attract vital support from congressional Democrats representing heavily coal-dependent areas, authors of the legislation, including Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills), have made a series of concessions that substantially soften its effect on coal -- at least over the next decade or so.

As a result, the Environmental Protection Agency projects that even if the emissions limits go into effect, the U.S. would use more carbon-dioxide-heavy coal in 2020 than it did in 2005.

That's because the bill gives utilities a financial incentive to keep burning coal by joining the cap-and-trade system -- a kind of marketplace where polluters could reduce their emissions on paper by buying pollution reductions created by others. These so-called offsets, for example, could be created and sold by farmers who planted trees, which filter carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.


Environmental groups also say the bill could set off a boom in the construction of new coal plants because of provisions that would restrict legal efforts to block such projects.

Leading Democrats -- and some major conservation groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council -- say the moves have helped attract coal-district Democrats to support the bill without undermining the plan's environmental goals.

"We've ensured a role for coal" in the nation's energy future, said Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), one of the leading coal champions in the House.

Are you really serious? What keeps us captive to the Chavez'z and Arabs is YOUR POSTERBOY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISM PRESIDENT AND THE DEMOCRATS! :shock: Who stopped drilling? Who handcuffs any new developement? Who halted a bunch of offshore drilling? Who killed oilshale? And only a liberal could try to pass a giant cap and trade bill that's main focus is to LIMIT POLUTION and sell it by saying we will be burning MORE COAL in 10 years! :shock: And only a liberal would buy that BS story as fact! And would you please explain to me how this helps agriculture! If you want to stop being a producer and become a tree farm I'll bet the check will come! But if you really think these Vegan-led, radical sky-is-falling, global warming is imminent people who are pimping this baloney want you to continue tilling the earth and RELEASING CARBON you might want to buy some oceanfront property out my way! :roll: They want you out of buisness. They want your land in a conservation trust forever! They would rather see houses planted than corn or hay! They and the Dem. party leaders want the water for big cities and the land is a giant wildhorse/pot growing/ landbank! Alright, i threw in the pot growing just to dig a spur! :wink: But in reality, these people won't be happy till thier agenda is met across the board! But you keep pretending they have agricultures best intrests in mind if it hepls ya sleep! And let me know when that big Federal check rolls in, if you keep running YOUR LAND the way YOU WANT TOO! :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
leanin' H said:
Oldtimer said:
Farmers also will find new ways to make money in a carbon economy. Carbon consultants like the International Carbon Bank & Exchange in Florida see huge potential in agriculture for managing carbon emissions. Farmers that till their soil differently or apply new environmental techniques can get money by cooperating with a polluter as a carbon "offset."

Owners of large tracts of forest land also will get a lot of interest from the business community. Like farmers, environmental experts see them as a huge player in the carbon economy because of their natural ability to absorb carbon.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency both issued estimates of how the climate bill would affect energy costs.

The CBO estimated the cost at $175 a year for the average household. The EPA forecasts $80 to $110 a year.

Also EPA says that coal usage and coal jobs will greatly EXPAND in the next 10 years- and then even later as more "clean coal" technology is used in the production of electricity that will replace some of the oil based energy now used- that keeps us captive to the Chavez's and Arabs of the world...

June 22, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of heat-trapping gases that cause global warming, but President Obama's plan to fight climate change would result in the nation burning more coal a decade from now than it does today.

The administration's plan, the centerpiece of a 700-page legislative package, proposes strict limits on emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide.

But to attract vital support from congressional Democrats representing heavily coal-dependent areas, authors of the legislation, including Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills), have made a series of concessions that substantially soften its effect on coal -- at least over the next decade or so.

As a result, the Environmental Protection Agency projects that even if the emissions limits go into effect, the U.S. would use more carbon-dioxide-heavy coal in 2020 than it did in 2005.

That's because the bill gives utilities a financial incentive to keep burning coal by joining the cap-and-trade system -- a kind of marketplace where polluters could reduce their emissions on paper by buying pollution reductions created by others. These so-called offsets, for example, could be created and sold by farmers who planted trees, which filter carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.


Environmental groups also say the bill could set off a boom in the construction of new coal plants because of provisions that would restrict legal efforts to block such projects.

Leading Democrats -- and some major conservation groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council -- say the moves have helped attract coal-district Democrats to support the bill without undermining the plan's environmental goals.

"We've ensured a role for coal" in the nation's energy future, said Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), one of the leading coal champions in the House.

Are you really serious? What keeps us captive to the Chavez'z and Arabs is YOUR POSTERBOY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISM PRESIDENT AND THE DEMOCRATS! :shock: Who stopped drilling? Who handcuffs any new developement? Who halted a bunch of offshore drilling? Who killed oilshale? And only a liberal could try to pass a giant cap and trade bill that's main focus is to LIMIT POLUTION and sell it by saying we will be burning MORE COAL in 10 years! :shock: And only a liberal would buy that BS story as fact! And would you please explain to me how this helps agriculture! If you want to stop being a producer and become a tree farm I'll bet the check will come! But if you really think these Vegan-led, radical sky-is-falling, global warming is imminent people who are pimping this baloney want you to continue tilling the earth and RELEASING CARBON you might want to buy some oceanfront property out my way! :roll: They want you out of buisness. They want your land in a conservation trust forever! They would rather see houses planted than corn or hay! They and the Dem. party leaders want the water for big cities and the land is a giant wildhorse/pot growing/ landbank! Alright, i threw in the pot growing just to dig a spur! :wink: But in reality, these people won't be happy till thier agenda is met across the board! But you keep pretending they have agricultures best intrests in mind if it hepls ya sleep! And let me know when that big Federal check rolls in, if you keep running YOUR LAND the way YOU WANT TOO! :wink:

Leaning H- the derricks have been stacked since oil prices dropped....Drilling is only now starting up again as prices go up....In the state of Montana alone they just announced thousands of more oil leases that will go out- many in the Bakken field...Go to the DNRC website and see them...There are hundreds of thousands of acres of more leases out there- that aren't being drilled on...
But all the talk of drilling won't do any good-- there isn't the rigs domestically- the pipelines- the refineries to handle it all...And there will not be that much investment into them until we get a LONGTERM energy plan....Oil should be- and is a major part of every plan by every party I've seen put out....But like Boone Pickens says- drill drill drill alone won't cut it anymore... We need alternative sources- gas, coal, wind, solar, biodiesel/gas, nuclear, etc. etc-- and we need a smart grid to move the electricity from the areas that make it- to the areas that need it- and one that is resistant from a terrorist attack....

You can sit and rant all you want about liberals- and blame them- and you'll still be yelling it when your buddies Chavez and the Arab Princes run the price of gas to $10 a gallon-- but some things like ANWR and some offshore (Pacific Coast) will never be allowed...Too many people there against it...
I had hoped Bush-having a majority party Congress would develop that plan- but again he dropped the ball and did nothing...Now the other team is going to do it- and you and probably I- am not going to like it all- but it has to be done....And done NOW...It should have been done 40 years ago...
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
leanin' H said:
Oldtimer said:
Also EPA says that coal usage and coal jobs will greatly EXPAND in the next 10 years- and then even later as more "clean coal" technology is used in the production of electricity that will replace some of the oil based energy now used- that keeps us captive to the Chavez's and Arabs of the world...

Are you really serious? What keeps us captive to the Chavez'z and Arabs is YOUR POSTERBOY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISM PRESIDENT AND THE DEMOCRATS! :shock: Who stopped drilling? Who handcuffs any new developement? Who halted a bunch of offshore drilling? Who killed oilshale? And only a liberal could try to pass a giant cap and trade bill that's main focus is to LIMIT POLUTION and sell it by saying we will be burning MORE COAL in 10 years! :shock: And only a liberal would buy that BS story as fact! And would you please explain to me how this helps agriculture! If you want to stop being a producer and become a tree farm I'll bet the check will come! But if you really think these Vegan-led, radical sky-is-falling, global warming is imminent people who are pimping this baloney want you to continue tilling the earth and RELEASING CARBON you might want to buy some oceanfront property out my way! :roll: They want you out of buisness. They want your land in a conservation trust forever! They would rather see houses planted than corn or hay! They and the Dem. party leaders want the water for big cities and the land is a giant wildhorse/pot growing/ landbank! Alright, i threw in the pot growing just to dig a spur! :wink: But in reality, these people won't be happy till thier agenda is met across the board! But you keep pretending they have agricultures best intrests in mind if it hepls ya sleep! And let me know when that big Federal check rolls in, if you keep running YOUR LAND the way YOU WANT TOO! :wink:

Leaning H- the derricks have been stacked since oil prices dropped....Drilling is only now starting up again as prices go up....In the state of Montana alone they just announced thousands of more oil leases that will go out- many in the Bakken field...Go to the DNRC website and see them...There are hundreds of thousands of acres of more leases out there- that aren't being drilled on...
But all the talk of drilling won't do any good-- there isn't the rigs domestically- the pipelines- the refineries to handle it all...And there will not be that much investment into them until we get a LONGTERM energy plan....Oil should be- and is a major part of every plan by every party I've seen put out....But like Boone Pickens says- drill drill drill alone won't cut it anymore... We need alternative sources- gas, coal, wind, solar, biodiesel/gas, nuclear, etc. etc-- and we need a smart grid to move the electricity from the areas that make it- to the areas that need it- and one that is resistant from a terrorist attack....

You can sit and rant all you want about liberals- and blame them- and you'll still be yelling it when your buddies Chavez and the Arab Princes run the price of gas to $10 a gallon-- but some things like ANWR and some offshore (Pacific Coast) will never be allowed...Too many people there against it...
I had hoped Bush-having a majority party Congress would develop that plan- but again he dropped the ball and did nothing...Now the other team is going to do it- and you and probably I- am not going to like it all- but it has to be done....And done NOW...It should have been done 40 years ago...

The President today submitted nominations to the Senate for key positions in the Department of Energy (DOE) and signed the Executive order setting October 1 as opening day for the new Cabinet Department.

Creation of the Department of Energy will give a clear direction and focus to America's energy future by providing the framework for carrying out a comprehensive, balanced national energy policy.

The new Department was proposed by President Carter on March 1 to provide the framework for carrying out national energy policy. On August 4, 1977, the Department of Energy Organization Act was signed' into law, and the following day James R. Schlesinger was confirmed by the Senate as the first Secretary of Energy.

Among the major programs under the new Department are: conservation, resource development and production, research and development, data information management, and regulation.

With a first-year budget of almost $10.4 billion, the new Department will inherit almost 20,000 employees under this Government reorganization.


so OT- if government is the answer how well has this been working out??
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Lonecowboy said:
Oldtimer said:
leanin' H said:
Are you really serious? What keeps us captive to the Chavez'z and Arabs is YOUR POSTERBOY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISM PRESIDENT AND THE DEMOCRATS! :shock: Who stopped drilling? Who handcuffs any new developement? Who halted a bunch of offshore drilling? Who killed oilshale? And only a liberal could try to pass a giant cap and trade bill that's main focus is to LIMIT POLUTION and sell it by saying we will be burning MORE COAL in 10 years! :shock: And only a liberal would buy that BS story as fact! And would you please explain to me how this helps agriculture! If you want to stop being a producer and become a tree farm I'll bet the check will come! But if you really think these Vegan-led, radical sky-is-falling, global warming is imminent people who are pimping this baloney want you to continue tilling the earth and RELEASING CARBON you might want to buy some oceanfront property out my way! :roll: They want you out of buisness. They want your land in a conservation trust forever! They would rather see houses planted than corn or hay! They and the Dem. party leaders want the water for big cities and the land is a giant wildhorse/pot growing/ landbank! Alright, i threw in the pot growing just to dig a spur! :wink: But in reality, these people won't be happy till thier agenda is met across the board! But you keep pretending they have agricultures best intrests in mind if it hepls ya sleep! And let me know when that big Federal check rolls in, if you keep running YOUR LAND the way YOU WANT TOO! :wink:

Leaning H- the derricks have been stacked since oil prices dropped....Drilling is only now starting up again as prices go up....In the state of Montana alone they just announced thousands of more oil leases that will go out- many in the Bakken field...Go to the DNRC website and see them...There are hundreds of thousands of acres of more leases out there- that aren't being drilled on...
But all the talk of drilling won't do any good-- there isn't the rigs domestically- the pipelines- the refineries to handle it all...And there will not be that much investment into them until we get a LONGTERM energy plan....Oil should be- and is a major part of every plan by every party I've seen put out....But like Boone Pickens says- drill drill drill alone won't cut it anymore... We need alternative sources- gas, coal, wind, solar, biodiesel/gas, nuclear, etc. etc-- and we need a smart grid to move the electricity from the areas that make it- to the areas that need it- and one that is resistant from a terrorist attack....

You can sit and rant all you want about liberals- and blame them- and you'll still be yelling it when your buddies Chavez and the Arab Princes run the price of gas to $10 a gallon-- but some things like ANWR and some offshore (Pacific Coast) will never be allowed...Too many people there against it...
I had hoped Bush-having a majority party Congress would develop that plan- but again he dropped the ball and did nothing...Now the other team is going to do it- and you and probably I- am not going to like it all- but it has to be done....And done NOW...It should have been done 40 years ago...

The President today submitted nominations to the Senate for key positions in the Department of Energy (DOE) and signed the Executive order setting October 1 as opening day for the new Cabinet Department.

Creation of the Department of Energy will give a clear direction and focus to America's energy future by providing the framework for carrying out a comprehensive, balanced national energy policy.

The new Department was proposed by President Carter on March 1 to provide the framework for carrying out national energy policy. On August 4, 1977, the Department of Energy Organization Act was signed' into law, and the following day James R. Schlesinger was confirmed by the Senate as the first Secretary of Energy.

Among the major programs under the new Department are: conservation, resource development and production, research and development, data information management, and regulation.

With a first-year budget of almost $10.4 billion, the new Department will inherit almost 20,000 employees under this Government reorganization.


so OT- if government is the answer how well has this been working out??

It hasn't- because Carter couldn't get his Longterm Plan thru Congress--and nobody has since....Even the CAFE standards that Carter got put in were later not enforced by Reagan and Bush....
I watched old Jimmy testify to Congress the other day- and put a pitch in for more nuclear plants...They played some of his old speachs- and while back then I thought he was a Doofus- in those speachs he now looked like a genius- because everyone of his predictions- including us fighting oil wars in the mideast and American troops dying over oil- have come true in the 40 years since he made them...
Were you aware that back in the 70's- after we were oil embargoed by our oil friends- oil/gas prices were regulated by the government?... Thats how long we've been arguing about this issue...
Thats why I say it is time NOW to get a Longterm Energy Plan...
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
TexasBred said:
Steve said:
OT
Thats why I say it is time NOW to get a Longterm Energy Plan...

even if it is a bad plan, and a plan that will not work?

Certainly...if it doesn't work they'll blame Bush.

The White House needs to come out with a new "Grand Theft Auto" video game where you get points for running over Obama and Pelosi. They'd sell millions of them.
 
Top