Posted by
Wil on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 11:03:44 PM
Its headline reads "House approves offshore drilling" and describes a bill which will do far more harm than good. The essentials:
1) "
The House has voted to allow oil drilling off the nation's Atlantic and Pacific coasts if states agree — but only 50 or more miles out" and "
The Democrats' bill would allow drilling in waters 50 miles from shore almost everywhere from New England to Washington state as long as a state agrees to go along with energy development off its coast line. Beyond 100 miles, no state approval would be required. The drilling ban would remain in the eastern Gulf of Mexico." and "
They cited Interior Department estimates that 88 percent of the 18 billion barrels of oil believed to be in waters now under drilling bans would remain off limits because they are within 50 miles of shore. And they said few states would likely agree to drilling since the bill does not provide states with any of the royalties from the new energy production"
So it allows the states to vote for themselves on drilling, and since they get nothing from it, most of them would likely vote no. It permanently limits drilling any closer to 50 miles out, putting off limits in perpetuity the best chance of large oil reserves
2) Roll back $18 billion in tax breaks for the five largest oil companies and requires energy companies to pay billions of dollars in royalties avoided because of an Interior Department contracting error.
Just a thought here, but won't retroactive taxes raise the prices dramatically? Isn't that part of the point? Oil is a commodity like any other. Taxes ought not be overwhelming and really, ought to be at the state level much more than the federal, since state residents are the ones impacted by things occuring in their states.
3) Require the release of oil from the government's Strategic Petroleum Reserve to try to push down gasoline prices
This is a ridiculous non solution that will seriously risk our security if there is a real crisis (such as a war with Iran or a natural disaster that takes out too many resources.
4) Provide tax credits for wind and solar energy industries, the development of cellulose ethanol and other biofuels. Require utilities nationwide to generate 15 percent of their electricity from solar, wind or other alternative energy source.
Tax credits? I would rather see a less complicated tax code, not more, but I can live with that. What I can't live with is the utilities mandate. If these technologies are economically feasible, they will be adopted, and if they aren't they won't. This will force utilites to use higher cost alternatives to meet the mandate and they will pass ont he cost in the form of higher utility bills
5) Make it a federal crime for oil companies holding federal leases to provide gifts to government employees, a response to a recent sex and drug scandal involving the federal office that oversees the offshore oil royalty program and energy company employees.
I thought it already was a crime to bribe officials. Isn't that what Sarah Palin made serious efforts to stop in Alaska? I can support this, but don't know that it is really necessary.
6) Give tax breaks for new energy efficiency programs including the use of improved building codes and for companies that promote their employees use of bicycles for commuting.
Again with the tax breaks? The idea that government needs to reward the behavior it wants with tax breaks is a sign that taxes as a whole are too onerous and need to be reduced.
7)
Nowhere in this article did I hear mention of Nuclear Power, ANWR, Oil Shale, or any other of a number of serious reforms that need to occur in any productive energy bill.
We can't let up folks. I am going to E-mail McCain tonight asking that he send Palin to the steps of the House to hold a press conference and speak with the Republican leadership of the House behind her about the faults in this bill, and the necessary components of an energy plan that will actually do some good. Why her? Because she is news right now, and she will bring press to house members who will otherwise be ignored. If all of us who want energy reform do the same, maybe we will see it happen. We can't let this ridiculous excuse for "comprehensive energy" give cover to the dems, and we must stand up to Republicans (especially in the Senate) who seek a compromise that does more harm than good. I may have only 20 or 30 readers at most, but each of you has a few more and if we act fast, we can make this the issue that they must do something about.