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

Energy Hearing Full Of Comedy

Mike

Well-known member
Scenes from an Earth Day Hearing, Part II
House Energy & Commerce Committee, April 21-23

April 23, 2009

Is $8 gas good or bad? Energy Secretary: ‘Yes’

REP. CLIFF STEARNS, R-Fla.: Last September you made a statement that somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe, which at the time exceeded $8 a gallon. As Secretary of Energy, will you speak for or against any measures that would raise the price of gasoline?
SEC. CHU: As Secretary of Energy, I think especially now in today’s economic climate it would be completely unwise to want to increase the price of gasoline. And so we are looking forward to reducing the price of transportation in the American family. And this is done by encouraging fuel-efficient cars; this is done by developing alternative forms of fuel like biofuels that can lead to a separate source, an independent source of transportation fuel.
REP. STEARNS: But you can’t honestly believe that you want the American people to pay for gasoline at the prices, the level in Europe?
SEC. CHU: No, we don’t.
REP. STEARNS: No. But somehow, your statement, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” doesn’t that sound a little bit silly in retrospect for you to say that?
SEC. CHU: Yes. :lol:

Huh? What was the question? Nukes? Ah…, we’ll…uh…work on it…hmmm.

REP. STEARNS: The first question I have is, this is directed to the Secretary of Energy. During your confirmation hearing, you testified that DOE has a legal obligation to safely dispose of nuclear waste. You said, “I’m supportive of the fact that the nuclear industry is and should have to be part of our energy mix in this century.” Doesn’t it concern you then that nuclear energy does not even seem to be a part of this bill? I think this is a follow-up to Mr. Upton’s question.
SEC. CHU: Well, while not specifically part of this bill, if you look at the sum package of all the bills like the American Recovery Act, nuclear energy is supported in those other bills.
REP. STEARNS: But don’t you think there should be a separate title in this bill for nuclear energy? Just yes or no.
SEC. CHU: Pardon? What was the question?
REP. STEARNS: Do you think there should be a separate title in this bill for nuclear energy? Just yes or no.
SEC. CHU: We’re looking forward to working with the committee on –
REP. STEARNS: No. Just yes or no. Do you think it should be? Can I have your yes or no answer?
SEC. CHU: A separate title in nuclear energy?
REP. STEARNS: Yes. Yes or no?
SEC. CHU: I think nuclear energy can be mentioned in this bill, but again it’s working with this committee and the administration in developing –
REP. STEARNS: Is that a “no” then? You don’t think that –
SEC. CHU: No. That was a, that was a – we will look forward to working with the committee and making sure that nuclear energy is part of our energy mix. :lol:


Green jobs go missing

REP. ED WHITFIELD, R-Ky.: I wanted to ask you all, you Mr. Chu particularly and Ms. Jackson, if you had read Gabriel Alvarez’ study – he’s at King Juan Carlos’s University in Madrid. And he used empirical data based on the government subsidizing renewable energy in Spain. And he came up with the conclusion exactly how much every job cost. And I know that President Obama in this renewable energy package is modeling using Spain as a model, one of the models. But for every job created in the renewable energy sector, so-called green job, that they lost 2.2 jobs. And this is a 50-page empirical study that he conducted. And I was just, have either one of you seen his study?
MS. JACKSON: No. I’m not familiar with his study…. :roll: :roll:

We didn’t model that

REP. STEVE SCALISE, R-La.: Administrator Jackson, in your opening statement you talked about the jobs that would be created – green jobs that would be created under a cap-and-trade bill. Can you quantify how many jobs you estimate would be created under this legislation?
MS. JACKSON: I believe what I said, sir, is that this is a jobs bill and that the discussion draft bill in its entirety is aimed to jumpstart our move into the green economy.
REP. SCALISE: And I think you quoted President Obama saying that it was his opinion that he would – that this bill would create millions of jobs. I think you used the term “millions.” Is there anything that you can base your determination on how many jobs will be created?
MS. JACKSON: EPA has not done a model or any kind of modeling on jobs creation numbers. :???: :???:

Doomsday comes early to Ohio

REP. SCALISE: And, I mean, while you might not be a jobs expert, you’re obviously talking about, you know, and touting this bill as a jobs bill. If you would claim that it would create jobs, are you making an assumption that it won’t lose any jobs, that no jobs will be lost? Or if you don’t make that claim, how many jobs would you expect to be lost? Because groups have made very large claims. I mean, the National Association of Manufacturers claims our country would lose 3 to 4 million jobs as a result of a cap and trade energy tax.
So I just wanted to know if you or any members of the panel want to answer that question.
MS. JACKSON: I’ll go first and –
(Cross talk.)
REP. SCALISE: – if you would.
MS. JACKSON: I know that lobbyists keep playing large doomsday scenarios – quiet deaths for businesses across the country. That’s what lobbyists said about the Clean Air Act in 1990 and it didn’t happen. In fact, the U.S. economy grew 64 percent…
…REP. JOHN SHIMKUS, R-Illinois: Let me ask Administrator Jackson. Do you know how many jobs – coal miner jobs were lost in Ohio because of the Clean Air Act amendments which you were addressing earlier?
MS. JACKSON: No, sir.
REP. SHIMKUS: Thirty-five-thousand. :mad: :mad:

I know what the policy is because I saw it on the TV

EPA ADMINISTRATOR. JACKSON: "The administration has no goal that is nefarious for coal. The president, on TV, in ads I see him talking about clean coal and how clean coal is crucial not only for the environment but to create jobs"…
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The hearings of today are being replayed on C-SPAN tonight (right now)....I caught a little off and on today....Gore was the first to testify- along with retired Senator/Navy Secretary John Warner who backs Gores beliefs on the importance of coming up with a clean energy policy- the importance to our military/security of getting us off the dependence on foreign oil- not putting it off anymore- and criticized some of both parties for too much partisanship and taking party lines rather than looking for real answers based on science/technology...

I only heard one interesting part- where one Senator really jumped down Gores throat about his being a partner in some clean energy firm...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Poor old Newt (who testified after Gore and Warner) came out looking pretty two faced- when after saying he opposed the ideas behind the current energy plan- one of the Congressmen stuck up several quotes where 2 years ago Newt was saying this type of Cap and Trade plan was the best energy fix we could ever have.... :shock:

His high dollar costs ($3,000+ per household per year) pretty well got blowed out of the saddle- when the Congressmen/Committee introduced a letter from Newts MIT expert saying the Republicans (Boehner) were missusing/misquoting his study- and that the true figure of the costs of the plan was actually $.18 a day or less than $150 a year.....
 

SMN Herf

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Poor old Newt (who testified after Gore and Warner) came out looking pretty two faced- when after saying he opposed the ideas behind the current energy plan- one of the Congressmen stuck up several quotes where 2 years ago Newt was saying this type of Cap and Trade plan was the best energy fix we could ever have.... :shock:

His high dollar costs ($3,000+ per household per year) pretty well got blowed out of the saddle- when the Congressmen/Committee introduced a letter from Newts MIT expert saying the Republicans (Boehner) were missusing/misquoting his study- and that the true figure of the costs of the plan was actually $.18 a day or less than $150 a year.....

Actually he has changed his numbers agian. He actually says that it is more like $800 due to a spreadsheet error and that is only the direct costs. His model also assumes that corporations and businesses won't pass on higher energy costs to the consumer. By his own admissions, the total cost would be closer to $4000 per household.

In my opinion any economist that doesn't include the passing on of costs by businesses isn't much of an econmist or an expert in doing economic modeling even if he works for MIT.

It is becoming more and more apparent that the same people promoting cap and trade and the whole green energy deal have financial interests in many of these companies.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Back to the topic... :roll: :roll:

REP. STEARNS: No. But somehow, your statement, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” doesn’t that sound a little bit silly in retrospect for you to say that?
SEC. CHU: Yes.

The above statement is much like every other Zer0 appointee.

Flip-Flopping is a way of life for them.......... :roll: :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Poor old Newt (who testified after Gore and Warner) came out looking pretty two faced- when after saying he opposed the ideas behind the current energy plan- one of the Congressmen stuck up several quotes where 2 years ago Newt was saying this type of Cap and Trade plan was the best energy fix we could ever have.... :shock:

His high dollar costs ($3,000+ per household per year) pretty well got blowed out of the saddle- when the Congressmen/Committee introduced a letter from Newts MIT expert saying the Republicans (Boehner) were missusing/misquoting his study- and that the true figure of the costs of the plan was actually $.18 a day or less than $150 a year.....

The President of Duke Energy said electricty would go up by 50% - and he's a man that should know what he's talking about.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Pretty well the entire consensus of Gore, Warner, Rush and all the Congressmen is we need a new energy policy- and a change in being so tied to carbon based energy (which they all agree probably won't be totally replaced for 50-70-100 years depending on how fast the technology advances) or the country will be in dire straits... The main dispute was on how to accomplish that change...

Altho 2 years ago Newt had come out supporting Cap and Trade as a way to force us off the dependence of foreign countries that don't like us--now he (partisanly :???: ) is questioning the plan that goes that way...
:???:
He instead supports tax credits for industry allowing industy to lead that way voluntarily- rather than government caps-- but a good argument that was brought up - was that even he supported sulpher caps because industry would not do it on their own-and it worked---and most are fearful of because it has been shown over the last few years with current big industries greed over national benefits with the Oil Companies excessive profiteering instead of investing back for the betterment of the country or cutting prices for the consumers when they were given tax breaks-- Caps may be the only way to force Big Industry into a new direction....

My feelings of the hearing is that it will end up being a compromise- with both some regulated caps- and carbon trade- and tax incentives for those moving toward new energy providers.....

But as all said and agreed on- they need to make a long term plan NOW- so the utilities and industry can also plan ahead.....

I believe in corporations. They are indispensable instruments of our modern civilization; but I believe that they should be so supervised and so regulated that they shall act for the interest of the community as a whole.
~Theodore Roosevelt
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
OT, what % of what you pay for gas goes to the big bad corporation in the US?

What % goes to the Government?

How much each year do they spend on road construction and upkeep?

Why are there so many road projects in the Stimulus bill?

Who are the Fatcats?
 

Steve

Well-known member
OT/ MIT expert said:
that the true figure of the costs of the plan was actually $.18 a day or less than $150 a year

let see,... at 105,480,101 households as of 2000 X 150 = $15,822,015,150.00

even if you use the low numbers.. it is a tax increase of over $15,822,015,150.00

wow that's alot of numbers.. is it a billion.. or just lots of millions?

now would an almost 16 billion dollar energy tax have no effect? and thats when they are down playing the tax impact..

makes you wonder how big the real cap and trade tax increase will be?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Actually he has changed his numbers agian. He actually says that it is more like $800 due to a spreadsheet error and that is only the direct costs. His model also assumes that corporations and businesses won't pass on higher energy costs to the consumer. By his own admissions, the total cost would be closer to $4000 per household.

at $800 per household.. $84,384,080,800.00 84 billion.. tax increase

at $4000 per household... sorry it was to many numbers for my cheap calculator, any ways why worry the energy (cap and trade), tax will move most manufacturing job over seas..
 

SMN Herf

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Maybe we should first determine the need for such a tax!

I have yet to find any evidence of this tax even achieving its results. Its all based on the theory of helping the environment and under the guise of job creation. In reality it appears to me it is simply another revenue stream for the Washington beauracrats to tap into.
 
Top