Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Home Front: Politix

House approves GOP-backed energy legislation

2005-04-22

Let's see if it makes it out of the Senate...

The House approved a broad energy bill today aimed at boosting domestic production, including provisions to allow oil drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge and to shield makers of a gasoline additive from water contamination lawsuits. The largely Republican crafted bill was approved 249-183 after two days in which the GOP majority turned back repeated attempts by Democrats to add measures they said would reduce energy use, including a proposal for higher automobile fuel economy requirements. The bill includes $12 billion in tax breaks and subsidies for energy companies, more than the Bush administration said it wanted. Nevertheless, the White House strongly endorsed the measure. "This is a comprehensive piece of legislation and it does address one of the fundamental problems facing our nation and that is that we are growing more dependent on foreign sources of energy," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

Democrats argued that it would have little impact on U.S. reliance on oil imports and failed to address high gasoline and other energy prices. Contentious issues during debate involved the gasoline additive MTBE. The bill calls for shielding MTBE makers from product liability lawsuits stemming from contamination of drinking water supplies. Democrats warned the liability waiver would leave the public with billions of dollars in cleanup costs.

Posted by:Fred

#11 MBTE was blamed for massive increases in sinus infections and allergies in Chicago and other lake areas. In cold winter weather with inversions its not too healthy.

Posted by: 3dc 2005-04-22 4:35:42 PM

#10 ..why don't they mandate a single formulation for the entire country, or at least a maximum of two or three..

Because doing do makes sense, and if something makes sense, the government is typically not going set an example by doing something sensible.

..and increase the number of refineries by at least 1/3?

Try proposing the construction of a refinery someplace, and you'll get your answer why their numbers haven't been increased.

Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-04-22 1:25:24 PM

#9 If the government really wants to do something to lower the price of gasoline in the US, why don't they mandate a single formulation for the entire country, or at least a maximum of two or three and increase the number of refineries by at least 1/3?

Posted by: Remoteman 2005-04-22 12:47:35 PM

#8 Is MBTE an issue anywhere other than Caliphornia?

Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-04-22 11:46:31 AM

#7 "Democrats warned the liability waiver would leave the public with billions of dollars in cleanup costs."

Well, who forced the use of MBTE? The GOVERNMENT!

Lawsuits willforce the gas companies to pay for the MBTE cleanup? Well guess who those costs get passed to, as a result of increasingt the cost of business? The PUBLIC.

And once the gasoline copanies are bankrupted by the costs of the MBTE cleanup, who ultimately will bear the cost when the government has to step in? The PUBLIC.

Are the Democrats really THAT stupid that they cannot see the ultimate end, the Public pays no matter what, and the government caused all this to begin with?

What a collection of idiots the Democratic party has become. Harry Truman, rest in peace.

Posted by: OldSpook 2005-04-22 11:34:19 AM

#6 Verlaine in Iraq----The thing that bugs me about the Bush Administration is that they are not educating the public on basic energy principles. Just standard statements. When we are talking about biofuel, we have to look at the overall energy balance. What is our payback in energy after we have done the conversion of biomass, or corn (liquor, heh) or whatever into diesel? Nobody explains that oil is a solar savings account. Oil was formed millions of years ago from byproducts of growing things from sunlight. Now we are drawing from that savings account. Bringing some simple, but rational things to the table will help the US to decide how best to deal with our energy challenges in the 21st century. Leadership is lacking here, so the LLL, moonbats, et all will step in to fill the void.

Posted by: Alaska Paul 2005-04-22 10:04:11 AM

#5 Verlaine, two points. Firstly the USA or any country could have unlimited cheap energy from nuclear power as France has proved. Secondly, demand for fossil fuels especially oil is increasing faster than any possible increase in supply. There will be the mother of all energy supply crunches by the end of this year. World wide recession is the only way out.

Posted by: phil_b 2005-04-22 7:39:23 AM

#4 Here is an article that analyses MBTE and ethanol production as a replacement for gasoline. Despite some extremely shonky math it concludes that MBTE and Ethanol require more fossil fuels to produce than their energy value. The best the authors can say is that sometime in the future they may deliver a net energy gain. Note that the authors have to factor out electricity generated from non-fossil fuel sources (despite the fact when it comes to electricity production energy sources are interchangeable), include energy consumed in the (oil) producing country, and completely ignore secondary inputs like the gas workers use to drive to work and the energy to power their homes. And before someone says the workers would drive somewhere else, I would reply, it would be to produce something of value that can be sold in order to buy energy, instead of this running round in circles to end up way behind where you started from nonsense.

This is lunacy. And BTW the argument that MBTE and ethanol 'replace' inported energy is complete nonsense. The USA imports energy to cover the gap between domestic production and demand. Increase demand as alternate fuels do, then you increase imports. Start and end of story.

Posted by: phil_b 2005-04-22 7:29:52 AM

#3 In this case the Dems have stumbled upon a correct contention -- though for the wrong reason, and it's not material to the issue at hand (ANWAR).

I bend over in agony each time I hear Dubya (or other savvy folks) play along with the myth of energy independence. Increasing volume and diversity of supply (both of petroleum and non-petroleum solutions) is desirable, and 95% a function of price levels. But notwithstanding the cartel, oil is the most efficiently produced, marketed, and priced commodity in human history. It is the lifeblood of ALL economies of any consequence, cuz such economies have a significant international component.

A price shock in oil is always universal in impact -- which does not diminish the utility of short-term palliative/stabilizing tools like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. But while diversity of supply sources is inherently good -- and a natural development of unfettered markets responding to robust demand -- it's not a question of becoming "independent" in any meaningful sense.

Our reliance is not meaningfully on physical imports of the commodity -- it is on a globalized, dynamic, and increasingly efficient world economy. This economy cannot escape from the oil markets, regardless of how much oil crosses whichever borders. There is no plausible set of developments -- technological, economic, whether within or without the energy sector -- that will change this any time during our lives. And there's no problem with that. The US thrives most of all because of our ability to adapt and change. A thriving world oil market supported by robust prices is our best energy security --"independence" is not just infeasible ... it's actually undesirable.

I obviously think enough of Dubya's leadership and sense to come to Baghdad (though not in a dangerous job), but I wish he'd use his pulpit to educate on markets. Oil prices are one of the clearest and easiest market situations in the news to use as a real-world classroom. When gas prices jump and the astonishing spectacle unfolds of US senators flaunting their ignorance of economics thru speeches with charts and graphs on the Senate floor, absurdly intimating dark Big Oil conspiracies to fleece the Little Guy, I just wish someone would step up and bitch-slap this nonsense to hell.

Posted by: Verlaine in Iraq 2005-04-22 7:20:03 AM

#2 From my reading, I understand that there is some language that dismisses lawsuits filed after 1993 against makers of MBTE additive. The only thing is that Congress and/or EPA mandated it. Now some members of the Senate may try to kill the energy bill because of this provision. Why should MBTE manufacturers be responsible, it was the govt that shoved this down our throats. We will see what the ~~Roman~~ Senate comes up with.

Posted by: Alaska Paul 2005-04-22 12:45:17 AM

#1 Democrats argued that it would have little impact on U.S. reliance on oil imports and failed to address high gasoline and other energy prices.

They've been arguing this, all right. How about doing something about it?

Posted by: Raj 2005-04-22 12:26:47 AM

00:00