Does Obama Stick to Anything?

[TC]

Aug 4, 2008 8:40:06 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

[
Would something like this bill qualify?

www.gop.gov/energy/americanenergyact/

The "All of the Above Plan"? It's got a lot of Democrats as cosponsors (of the various legislation that's been rolled into it).

I think that could be a good bill to start with (take a full week, debate it under an open rule, allow amendments and see what occurs). Pelosi doesn't think so though:

Not really. Most of that bill is about drilling and use of other sources of fossil-fuels (coal-to-liquid, oil shale - both of which are heavy CO2 polluters and have a low EROEI). You really think that's a sensible energy policy going forward?

Given the mess that corn ethanol turned into, I'd rather have an energy bill that's put together in longer than a week, especially if the Democrats are making major concessions and allowing off-shore drilling.

[kchoya]

Aug 4, 2008 13:29:52 GMT -5 Bando said:

Aug 4, 2008 12:37:07 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Bando, you should know better than that though. It's not funny in the slightest if you or I make the joke.

Ha!

Look, I enjoy having a spirited debate here with you on different topics. But if you're going to side with the loser from Florida, I'm going to lose all respect for you.

[kchoya]

Aug 4, 2008 15:01:55 GMT -5 TC said:

Aug 4, 2008 8:40:06 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

[
Would something like this bill qualify?

www.gop.gov/energy/americanenergyact/

The "All of the Above Plan"? It's got a lot of Democrats as cosponsors (of the various legislation that's been rolled into it).

I think that could be a good bill to start with (take a full week, debate it under an open rule, allow amendments and see what occurs). Pelosi doesn't think so though:

Not really. Most of that bill is about drilling and use of other sources of fossil-fuels (coal-to-liquid, oil shale - both of which are heavy CO2 polluters and have a low EROEI). You really think that's a sensible energy policy going forward?

Given the mess that corn ethanol turned into, I'd rather have an energy bill that's put together in longer than a week, especially if the Democrats are making major concessions and allowing off-shore drilling.

If you're going to place a high value on CO2 pollution and the EROEI of different types of energy sources, then you're going to severely limit our options.

We're going to get rid of our need for oil/petroleum/gas anytime soon - so we need to look at ways to get more oil. Drilling has to be part of any plan. However, that plan has to address all other types of energy as well.

The ethanol example is great. Let's throw all our corn into biofuels so I can listen to the dairy farmers moan about the high price of feed and this and that, and the price of my cheeseburger doubles.

The attempted solution can't be just about nuclear, or natural gas, or wind, or oil - it has to include everything. And that's going to take more than a week.

[TBird41]

Aug 4, 2008 15:01:55 GMT -5 TC said:

Aug 4, 2008 8:40:06 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

[
Would something like this bill qualify?

www.gop.gov/energy/americanenergyact/

The "All of the Above Plan"? It's got a lot of Democrats as cosponsors (of the various legislation that's been rolled into it).

I think that could be a good bill to start with (take a full week, debate it under an open rule, allow amendments and see what occurs). Pelosi doesn't think so though:

Not really. Most of that bill is about drilling and use of other sources of fossil-fuels (coal-to-liquid, oil shale - both of which are heavy CO2 polluters and have a low EROEI). You really think that's a sensible energy policy going forward?

Given the mess that corn ethanol turned into, I'd rather have an energy bill that's put together in longer than a week, especially if the Democrats are making major concessions and allowing off-shore drilling.

Thanks for actually looking at the bills included in that legislation, none of which were introduced last week, or the week before that, or the week before that.

For example, HR 6107, which opens ANWR, was introduced May 21st as part of the REpublicans rolling out their energy plan. And yes, it does lead to more drilling. You know what else it does? Use the federal revenue from the leases to pay for alternative energy research and grants.

Also, the OCS ban expires Sept 30th, since it's an annual rider in the appropriations bills--somehow, I don't see President Bush signing a bill with an extension of the ban included in it.

[TC]

Aug 4, 2008 19:11:27 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

Thanks for actually looking at the bills included in that legislation, none of which were introduced last week, or the week before that, or the week before that.

Huh? You said "take a full week, debate it under an open rule, allow amendments and see what occurs". I don't think you solve anything this complex in a full week, and you sure don't solve anything this complex with a partisan energy plan. Be honest - Pelosi doesn't want this to come to a vote because it's been seven and a half years of ignoring this problem, and most of these are really band aids for election day talking points. Neither side looks good on energy right now, but nothing worthwhile will get done till next year.

BTW I read your link, and I like Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD).

[jerseyhoya34]

I don't generally follow energy policy or the latest talking points on it, but it just seems to me that it requires a bit of imagination to trust the same folks to deal with our energy policy who dropped the football on a post-war energy policy for Iraq. Iraq has all of the oil we could hope for, much of it undisturbed during this war, and what happened? Somehow I don't think herding caribou in ANWR is the way we get out of this. To the extent that there is a mass-Band Aid approach with pet projects for wind, fossil fuels, nuclear, solar, etc., I think it may just disincentivise the exploration we need by preserving the status quo and keeping the energy industry satisfied enough.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Speaking of federal revenue from oil and gas leases, anybody think it might be a good idea to start charging something close to fair market value for the right of private entities to profit from the natural resources that belong to all Americans? Just an idea considering that Exxon once again posted record profit ....

But back to the important discussion at hand: politicians (and mid-level managers, taxi drivers, husbands, wives, in-laws, used-car salesman, flight attendants, school teachers, the guy that runs the bodega down the street, bartenders, softball umpires ...) change their minds and say different things to different audiences that have ambiguous and vague meanings! OH MY!!!

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Also, just wanted to throw this one out there:
www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1829354,00.html?cnn=yes

This kind of bald, reckless, shameless, bully-in-the-sandbox crap absolutely sickens me. You want to talk about whether Obama stands for something? How about people using modicum of personal responsibility to help tackle national and global problems. Seems today's Republicans can't even get behind that. Sad.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

The problem I have with McCain's energy plan is that he relies on cap-and-trade like its a panacea. Cap-and-trade actually just sets a price for pollution and attempts to set-up market conditions in which power plants can trade pollution permits. These markets fail to take into account the geographic placement of power plants and create pollution hot spots because the currency that is traded is tons of pollution per year without regard to geography. Eschewing other factors in the price of a pound of pollution means that other emerging concerns such as the pollution of other surrounding plants are not considered. Moreover, McCain is essentially advocating the legislative adoption of a bill that would overturn the D.C. Circuit Court's recent ruling in New Jersey v. EPA which ruled that the EPA can't change the structure of the Clean Air Act to create a cap-and-trade program for power plant emissions, which include emissions of mercury. This would essentially gut the Clean Air Act through a narrowly interpreted coal-fired power plant provision of the Act. Calling this environmentally friendly and a change from the Bush administration is cynical and incorrect because it would change environmental protections that have existed since the 1970s and would be the same administrative rule proposed by the Bush administration.

[TBird41]

Aug 4, 2008 22:37:59 GMT -5 Coast2CoastHoya said:

Speaking of federal revenue from oil and gas leases, anybody think it might be a good idea to start charging something close to fair market value for the right of private entities to profit from the natural resources that belong to all Americans? Just an idea considering that Exxon once again posted record profit ....

You know, I'm not going to pretend like I know anything about business, but is a 8% of revenue a huge profit? Because while Exxon made about $11 billion last year, they brought in about about $138 billion in revenue.

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080731/ap_on_bi_ge/earns_exxon_mobil

[TBird41]

Aug 4, 2008 21:54:42 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

I don't generally follow energy policy or the latest talking points on it, but it just seems to me that it requires a bit of imagination to trust the same folks to deal with our energy policy who dropped the football on a post-war energy policy for Iraq. Iraq has all of the oil we could hope for, much of it undisturbed during this war, and what happened? Somehow I don't think herding caribou in ANWR is the way we get out of this. To the extent that there is a mass-Band Aid approach with pet projects for wind, fossil fuels, nuclear, solar, etc., I think it may just disincentivise the exploration we need by preserving the status quo and keeping the energy industry satisfied enough.

I agree. Herding caribou in ANWR is not the way to solve the problem.

[TBird41]

Aug 4, 2008 21:04:36 GMT -5 TC said:

Aug 4, 2008 19:11:27 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

Thanks for actually looking at the bills included in that legislation, none of which were introduced last week, or the week before that, or the week before that.

Huh? You said "take a full week, debate it under an open rule, allow amendments and see what occurs". I don't think you solve anything this complex in a full week, and you sure don't solve anything this complex with a partisan energy plan. Be honest - Pelosi doesn't want this to come to a vote because it's been seven and a half years of ignoring this problem, and most of these are really band aids for election day talking points. Neither side looks good on energy right now, but nothing worthwhile will get done till next year.

BTW I read your link, and I like Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD).

Pelosi doesn't want this to come to a vote because she knows she will lose. She doesn't have the votes to defeat any kind of drilling amendment--she (and Rep. Obey) canceled the markup for the Dept. of Interior Approps bill because the Republicans were going to offer an OCS amendment that would have been adopted. Obey canceled the Labor HHS b/c the same amendment would have been adopted.

Also, you forget--what's passed in the House doesn't become law (otherwise ANWR would have been opened 12 times). Pass a bill in the House, and the Senate has to act. There's no way the Senate passes the same bill (one reason--the Senate Republicans have dropped ANWR from their energy package). So then you have a conference. And then, well, the conference would definitely take a while. Honestly, I don't think there's any chance of any kind of energy policy passing this Congress. Of course, if the House had done something in June/July, there would have been a chance. Too bad Pelosi was too busy protecting the earth (and blaming speculators, oil companies for not drilling and various other bogeymen), rather than trying to come with legislation to create an energy policy.

Also, you're right--Congress, and the last few Presidents have failed miserably at coming up any legislation to help the energy situation in America. The failure of the past is a pretty poor reason for this Congress not to try though.

[hifigator]

kc wrote:

Yesterday at 1:29pm, Bando wrote:
Yesterday at 12:37pm, hifigator wrote:Bando, you should know better than that though. It's not funny in the slightest if you or I make the joke.



Ha!



Look, I enjoy having a spirited debate here with you on different topics. But if you're going to side with the loser from Florida, I'm going to lose all respect for you.



then kc wrote:

If you're going to place a high value on CO2 pollution and the EROEI of different types of energy sources, then you're going to severely limit our options.

We're going to get rid of our need for oil/petroleum/gas anytime soon - so we need to look at ways to get more oil. Drilling has to be part of any plan. However, that plan has to address all other types of energy as well.



That sounds conspicuously like what I have been saying all along. Hmmm.... have you lost all respect?

[kchoya]

Aug 5, 2008 11:14:39 GMT -5 hifigator said:

kc wrote:

Yesterday at 1:29pm, Bando wrote:
Yesterday at 12:37pm, hifigator wrote:Bando, you should know better than that though. It's not funny in the slightest if you or I make the joke.



Ha!



Look, I enjoy having a spirited debate here with you on different topics. But if you're going to side with the loser from Florida, I'm going to lose all respect for you.



then kc wrote:

If you're going to place a high value on CO2 pollution and the EROEI of different types of energy sources, then you're going to severely limit our options.

We're going to get rid of our need for oil/petroleum/gas anytime soon - so we need to look at ways to get more oil. Drilling has to be part of any plan. However, that plan has to address all other types of energy as well.



That sounds conspicuously like what I have been saying all along. Hmmm.... have you lost all respect?

I just ignore your posts, so I have no idea what you've been saying.

[hifigator]

Are you an ostrich, oh, head-in-the-sand wise one?

[kchoya]

Aug 4, 2008 23:02:59 GMT -5 Coast2CoastHoya said:

Also, just wanted to throw this one out there:
www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1829354,00.html?cnn=yes

This kind of bald, reckless, shameless, bully-in-the-sandbox crap absolutely sickens me. You want to talk about whether Obama stands for something? How about people using modicum of personal responsibility to help tackle national and global problems. Seems today's Republicans can't even get behind that. Sad.

Really, that "sickens" you? Have we all become a bunch of pansies when it comes to political campaigning? This stuff is child's play.

[R Street Hoya]

Aug 5, 2008 4:23:12 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

Aug 4, 2008 22:37:59 GMT -5 Coast2CoastHoya said:

Speaking of federal revenue from oil and gas leases, anybody think it might be a good idea to start charging something close to fair market value for the right of private entities to profit from the natural resources that belong to all Americans? Just an idea considering that Exxon once again posted record profit ....

You know, I'm not going to pretend like I know anything about business, but is a 8% of revenue a huge profit? Because while Exxon made about $11 billion last year, they brought in about about $138 billion in revenue.

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080731/ap_on_bi_ge/earns_exxon_mobil

No 8% isn't huge, but that fact gets completely lost to everyone who watches CNN and only pays attention to headlines where they highlight pointless measures such as profit per hour. Hell even the GAP turned a 7% profit in their latest quarter ($3.4 billion in sales vs. 249 million in profit). Maybe Congress should take up a windfall tax on retailers as well...

[Boz]

Google made around 23-25%, I think.

Sic 'em!!

[atlasfrysmith]

The large oil profits are generally cited as evidence that gas prices could be lower without putting poor Exxon out of business. I think of it differently; these companies have the capacity to absorb higher taxes w/o being destroyed. Will that raise gas prices? Probably. Do I care? Not really. Burning fossil fuels creates negative externalities, and if you paid attention in econ, you'll remember that the way to internalize the externality is to tax the bejeezus out of it. As much as it will hurt in the short run, I'm kinda hoping prices get high enough that we actually decide to do something about it as a society. Maybe that makes me insensitive to the Plight of the Working Class, but if you take the tax revenue and spend it on something useful like schools or public health instead of conquest, we'll all end up better off anyway.

[EasyEd]

Aug 5, 2008 14:07:48 GMT -5 atlasfrysmith said:

The large oil profits are generally cited as evidence that gas prices could be lower without putting poor Exxon out of business. I think of it differently; these companies have the capacity to absorb higher taxes w/o being destroyed. Will that raise gas prices? Probably. Do I care? Not really. Burning fossil fuels creates negative externalities, and if you paid attention in econ, you'll remember that the way to internalize the externality is to tax the bejeezus out of it. As much as it will hurt in the short run, I'm kinda hoping prices get high enough that we actually decide to do something about it as a society. Maybe that makes me insensitive to the Plight of the Working Class, but if you take the tax revenue and spend it on something useful like schools or public health instead of conquest, we'll all end up better off anyway.

Who do you think owns "Big Oil"? Just about anybody that has a retirement plan, for instance, or who owns shares in mutual funds, for another instance. So, profit from a business such as oil, results in people's savings or retirement growing.