Democrats Dim Energy Plan: Tax and Sue

[ScreamingEagle]

Taxing oil companies and suing OPEC is not going to help reduce the skyrocketing cost of gas. There are only 2 real solutions for our problem: produce more or use less.

More than two years after Democrats promised to reveal their "commonsense" energy plan,' they finally unveiled it -- "minus the commonsense," McConnell said.

Republicans have a better plan in the works:

Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico, the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, agreed that the Democrats' plan will do nothing to lower gas prices.

"Americans don't need more taxes and more investigations -- they need more oil and lower prices. Yet nothing in the Democrats plan will produce a single drop of oil," he said.

A week ago, Domenici introduced legislation -- the "American Energy Production Act" (S.2958) -- that would boost oil supply by expanding production offshore and in Alaska.

Domenici said tapping the estimated 24 billion barrels of oil would be enough to keep America running for five years with no foreign imports. His bill also would boost fuel production from oil shale coal-to-liquids technology.

"All of this is untapped energy already owned by the American people," Domenici said. "I hope the Senate will vote on my legislation and go on the record to support production."

Democrats' Energy Plan Does Not Boost US Supply of Oil
May 8, 2008
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200805/POL20080508e.html

 

[LordBrownTrout]

"Pelosi called oil drilling a "failed energy policy of yesterday," and she said the president -- by threatening to veto Democrats' energy plan -- "is forbidding us to move our nation to a 21st century energy policy."




That's such a beautiful gem by Pelosi, obviously detached from realities. In 1995, Clinton would not allow production to come online in Alaska, reserves estimates of 2-12 billion barrels. If he had allowed this it would be online now. Also, we need to drill our reserves in the gulf WHILE pursuing other technologies.

 

[Larkinn]

Suing OPEC? Where exactly did Democrats say they are planning on doing that?

 

[Alpha1]

"Pelosi called oil drilling a "failed energy policy of yesterday," and she said the president -- by threatening to veto Democrats' energy plan -- "is forbidding us to move our nation to a 21st century energy policy."




That's such a beautiful gem by Pelosi, obviously detached from realities. In 1995, Clinton would not allow production to come online in Alaska, reserves estimates of 2-12 billion barrels. If he had allowed this it would be online now. Also, we need to drill our reserves in the gulf WHILE pursuing other technologies.

"Pelosi called oil drilling a "failed energy policy of yesterday," ?

If that doesn't epitomize to stupidity of the Democrats in general I don't what does....I heard today that Nigeria is getting rights or permission or something to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico....
While idiot Dims want to built windmills.....God help the United States of America....

The fact is, Democrats will do absolutely nothing to help solve any problems while Bush is in office....they know no matter what THEY do to fuck up things, Bush will shoulder the blame and they will pay no price at all...

 

[ReillyT]

Suing OPEC? Where exactly did Democrats say they are planning on doing that?

Here is a slate link discussing the idea.

http://www.slate.com/id/2190776/

 

[Larkinn]

I still don't see where they say she wants to Sue them. Break them up, yeah, but sue them?

And how exactly is breaking up OPEC bad?

 

[ReillyT]

I still don't see where they say she wants to Sue them. Break them up, yeah, but sue them?

I think they would have to be sued through the WTO (assuming legislation isn't passed allowing the Justice Department to go after them, although I have no idea how that would work).

And how exactly is breaking up OPEC bad?

It isn't.

 

[Annie]

I still don't see where they say she wants to Sue them. Break them up, yeah, but sue them?

And how exactly is breaking up OPEC bad?

If not suing, I don't know what this is:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=7376

Take more aggressive action to pressure OPEC to increase production – OPEC recently reiterated that it will not even consider increasing crude output until September 2008, even though limited supplies are contributing to record oil prices. Hillary believes we should be taking more aggressive action to address OPEC’s control over global production levels and hold OPEC accountable for its decisions. President Bush’s efforts to pressure OPEC over the past seven years have been inconsistent and unsuccessful. Hillary supports sending a strong signal to OPEC that the era of complacency has ended. Hillary will:

* Use the WTO to Challenge OPEC’s Production Quotas – With nine of the thirteen OPEC member countries also being members of the WTO, Hillary believes we should use the tools available at the WTO to address OPEC’s refusal to increase production. WTO rules currently prohibit member countries from imposing export quotas. Yet OPEC member countries are actively and explicitly banding together to restrict oil production and affect global prices. Hillary is calling on the President to engage in immediate negotiations with OPEC members and, if no progress is made, file a formal complaint against OPEC countries at the WTO. Filing a complaint at the WTO will send a clear signal to OPEC countries that the U.S. is committed to an open, transparent global oil market. Such a step will give OPEC members an incentive to increase production as well.
* Allow OPEC Production Decisions to Be Challenged Under U.S. Anti-Trust Law – Currently, OPEC countries cannot be challenged under U.S. anti-trust laws, even when they are engaged in coordinated, commercial activity to control the global oil market. Hillary supports amending the Foreign Sovereignty Immunities Act so that the Justice Department can bring suits against OPEC countries in U.S. courts for price fixing. Changing the rules would help hold OPEC countries accountable for their decisions.

 

[jillian]

And those are bad things?

We've already discussed the pointlessness of drilling in ANWAR.... no matter how much the repubs want to gift more profits to the oil companies and set a precedent for destroying the last of the untouched lands.

 

[Annie]

And those are bad things?

We've already discussed the pointlessness of drilling in ANWAR.... no matter how much the repubs want to gift more profits to the oil companies and set a precedent for destroying the last of the untouched lands.

Jillian, my own take is that we should be developing our own resources, not just in ANWAR, but off the coasts as well. At the same time, exploring for other sites, such as the one in North Dakota, building refineries and providing large incentives for the development of alternative sources, that don't result in a reduction of the world's food supply.

The US has the 3rd largest known supplies of oil currently, when was the last year that we allowed for the development or further exploration? It's past time to end the stranglehold of the environmental extremists, though putting penalties for 'accidents' in writing for new sites I'd have no problem with.

 

[jillian]

Jillian, my own take is that we should be developing our own resources, not just in ANWAR, but off the coasts as well. At the same time, exploring for other sites, such as the one in North Dakota, building refineries and providing large incentives for the development of alternative sources, that don't result in a reduction of the world's food supply.

The US has the 3rd largest known supplies of oil currently, when was the last year that we allowed for the development or further exploration? It's past time to end the stranglehold of the environmental extremists, though putting penalties for 'accidents' in writing for new sites I'd have no problem with.

Kathianne, We should be EXPLORING alternative energy sources. It would be enviro-smart and wean us off of oil which only serves to put money in the hands of countries that fund terrorists. Destroying the last wilderness for no reason (since there won't be any sustaining oil supplies from it) is pointless.

That isn't "extremism" ... not stewarding the environment in any kind of intelligent way is extremism. Allowing oil companies to create our energy policy is extremism.

And, Kathianne, if environmental "extremism" is the problem, why does China have better emissions standards for their autos than we do? We can't even export our cars there b/c they aren't up to standard.

 

[rayboyusmc]

McConnel says the Dems plan sucks and they "will" propose one of their own.

When? Want to bet it sucks just as bad but in their favor.

 

[Annie]

Kathianne, We should be EXPLORING alternative energy sources. It would be enviro-smart and wean us off of oil which only serves to put money in the hands of countries that fund terrorists. Destroying the last wilderness for no reason (since there won't be any sustaining oil supplies from it) is pointless.

That isn't "extremism" ... not stewarding the environment in any kind of intelligent way is extremism. Allowing oil companies to create our energy policy is extremism.

And, Kathianne, if environmental "extremism" is the problem, why does China have better emissions standards for their autos than we do? We can't even export our cars there b/c they aren't up to standard.

Have you noticed what people are buying lately? Fuel efficient cars. Why? Price of gas. The markets really will resolve themselves.

I care more about people getting to work and eating than about 'pristine wilderness' that no one is going to. Sorry but some ugly pipes isn't going to disrupt much. On the other hand, it will take years for any of this to get completed and we've waited long enough.

Yes, alternatives should be a pressing issue, but that will take longer than exploiting what we do have. It's way past time for it to happen.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Just a little sidenote, approximately 13 percent of our crude comes from the ME, not 87 percent. We could drill our coasts AND Alaska while coming up with other solutions to our energy.

 

[Alpha1]

Kathianne, We should be EXPLORING alternative energy sources. It would be enviro-smart and wean us off of oil which only serves to put money in the hands of countries that fund terrorists. Destroying the last wilderness for no reason (since there won't be any sustaining oil supplies from it) is pointless.

That isn't "extremism" ... not stewarding the environment in any kind of intelligent way is extremism. Allowing oil companies to create our energy policy is extremism.

And, Kathianne, if environmental "extremism" is the problem, why does China have better emissions standards for their autos than we do? We can't even export our cars there b/c they aren't up to standard.

Destroying the last wilderness for no reason ...? This is extremism and no one is destroying any wilderness....thats the radical ranting of fools...

As the entire world puts oil to use for its citizens, the US cowers and cringes ...and the ONLY ones that will suffer is our country....

Allowing oil companies to create our energy policy???
China have better emissions standards for their autos ???

Your brainwashing has been successful and total ....its obvious that thinking for yourself is now out of the question....

Let me open your eyes....oiling exploration and exploitation by the US will start soon, Anwar and offshore and oil from Rockie Mt. shale....
There will be no cars running on water and expelling perfume in its wake or any other nonsense that liberal naivety can dream up...

 

[jillian]

Have you noticed what people are buying lately? Fuel efficient cars. Why? Price of gas. The markets really will resolve themselves.

I care more about people getting to work and eating than about 'pristine wilderness' that no one is going to. Sorry but some ugly pipes isn't going to disrupt much. On the other hand, it will take years for any of this to get completed and we've waited long enough.

Yes, alternatives should be a pressing issue, but that will take longer than exploiting what we do have. It's way past time for it to happen.

Are they? They're doing better because it costs over $100 to fill a large SUV. But they aren't buying hybrids. Why? Because the Prius has 20 horsepower... no one who likes driving is going to drive it... heck, that's how many more horsepower my new car has than my last one.

It's a good start.. not good enough. No new car should get less than 20 mpg. I swear, I'm almost tempted to get one of these

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Another little tidbit here, there are an estimated 1 to 2 trillion barrels of oil in the shales in Wyoming. When crude was selling at 19 dollars a barrel the costs to extract it out were more than market prices would allow. Currently, it costs somewhere in the vicinity of 60 dollars a barrel to tease the oil out of shale. The resource IS there and needs to extracted. We can't just come up with a new technology overnight without extremely high prices. The realistic approach is to drill what we do have to keep prices down until newer technologies are available at reasonable prices.

 

[Annie]

Are they? They're doing better because it costs over $100 to fill a large SUV. But they aren't buying hybrids. Why? Because the Prius has 20 horsepower... no one who likes driving is going to drive it... heck, that's how many more horsepower my new car has than my last one.

It's a good start.. not good enough. No new car should get less than 20 mpg. I swear, I'm almost tempted to get one of these

I'd get that, if it would not be feasible here for probably 8-9 months of the year.

Hybrids, Prius included are not all that great. There is a serious need to do better, but government mandates are not the answer.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Kathianne, We should be EXPLORING alternative energy sources. It would be enviro-smart and wean us off of oil which only serves to put money in the hands of countries that fund terrorists. Destroying the last wilderness for no reason (since there won't be any sustaining oil supplies from it) is pointless.

There are many, many companies exploring alternate energy sources. Or, more to the point, advanced energy storage systems. It's going to take quite a while.

As far as putting money into the hands of terrorists, our allies the Saudis do that already, and we in turn give money to the Saudis. And I hate to disappoint you, but oil drilling won't stop when alternate energy sources are perfected. (Plus, the middle east will always be cheaper/easier to get oil from.) We still need oil for plastics and fertilizers. Whaling didn't end once petroleum was discovered, and petroleum won't end once lithium batteries are perfected.

Finally, drilling in the arctic won't be destroying it. Modern drilling is exceptionally clean. We're talking about an actual plant site the size of a shopping mall, in an area half the size of Texas. The existing Alaska pipeline hasn't harmed wildlife and this wouldn't either.

And, Kathianne, if environmental "extremism" is the problem, why does China have better emissions standards for their autos than we do? We can't even export our cars there b/c they aren't up to standard.

Haha, what? China? The country that is choking to death on smog? They can't export their cars here, not visa-versa. Mainly because their cars are either 100% reverse engineered from other companies, or claustrophobic shitbox deathtraps that can't pass EPA tests. American cars sell relatively well--GM is doing quite well, strangely enough. For some reason, the Chinese think Buick is some sort of great brand, go figure.

 

[Swamp Fox]

I still don't see where they say she wants to Sue them. Break them up, yeah, but sue them?

And how exactly is breaking up OPEC bad?

Who's going to break them up? Sure as hell they ain't going to break themselves up. The UN isn't going to break them up, even if it could. Who's left?