Jul

Congressional Dems Refuse to Debate or Vote on New Energy for America

Posted by: Mike's America @ 10:24 am in Uncategorized

Visited 822 times, 3 so far today

Govt. report estimates massive energy find in Alaska and Democrats won’t let us touch it!

The U.S. Geological Survey just released a summary of a new report showing an estimated 90 billion barrels of oil to be found above the Arctic Circle. That is enough oil to fuel the entire American economy for 12 years. Along with the oil, an estimated 1,669 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 44 billion barrels of natural gas liquids are available for the taking.

But taking it is the problem. The technology is there to safely extract these resources with little to no risk to the environment or wildlife. What stands in the way is the U.S. Congress. Meanwhile, the Canadians, the Russians, the Norweigans and anyone else with a valid territorial claim is rushing to the Arctic to drill, drill, drill. But the largest pot of gold in Alaska sits there untapped while the price of gas in the United States go up, up and up.

For months now, Republicans in both the House and Senate have been trying to get a vote on a variety of energy legislation that would increase supply, encourage conservation and assist in the development of alternative energy supplies. Their requests have been refused.

Instead, Harry Reid in the Senate and Nancy Pelosi in the House have shut off debate on any plan that would include more drilling of American energy resources.

Senator Reid offers a bill that would reign in oil speculators. That’s it. Not one drop of new oil brought to market. Speaker Pelosi demands that President Bush release 70 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and refill it at a later time. Her cry is “Free our oil” yet she won’t let American companies drill for American oil to free the American consumer from the daily negative impact of high gas prices.

Earlier this month, we highlighted efforts that the GOP Senate has undertaken to force the issue and bring a vote on their plan the Gas Price Reduction Act of 2008. It would lift much of the ban on offshore drilling, remove the ban on oil shale development, tighten regulation of oil speculation and foster development of electric cars and trucks.

Led by House Republican Leader John Boehner, House GOP members gathered to show support for the “all of the above” plan to help lower gas prices for the American consumer.

The House GOP unveiled it’s comprehensive “all of the above” plan called The American Energy Act on July 23, 2008. House Republicans gathered on the steps of the U.S. Capitol in a show of support for a plan that goes one better than the Senate GOP bill and permits drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and offshore in the Gulf of Mexico near Florida.

Compare the Democrat’s “no drill” plan with the “all of the above” GOP plan:

House Republicans Energy Fact Finding Trip

While Barack Obama was beginning his whirlwind global campaign rally, nine house GOP members led by House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) embarked on the American Energy Tour. Beginning in Golden, Colorado they first visited the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to highlight developments in cutting-edge solar, wind, fuel cell, biomass, and other emerging energy technologies.

From Colorado they ventured north to Alasaka where they toured the Prudhoe Bay oil production facilities and the area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Congress set aside for oil exploration when it ititially set up the wildlife refuge. For readers who are interested, a photoset of the entire trip is here.

Jim Angle of Fox News went along for a portion of the trip and filed this report from ANWR:

Is one environmentalist standing on a mountaintop peering dozens of miles into the distance and seeing a tiny building on the shore pumping oil enough to force the American people to pay $4 or more for a gallon of gasoline?

Leader Boehner Demands a Vote!

House Republican Leader John Boehner has been very out front in demanding that Democrats permit a vote on energy alternatives that are not solely dictated to the Congress by the environmental lobby. If you have missed his noble efforts, here’s a rundown.

And the effort seems to be paying off. This editorial in the Washington Post says it all:

No Drilling, No Vote
Speaker Pelosi won’t let the House debate the merits of offshore drilling.
Washington Post
Friday, July 25, 2008; Page A20

WHY NOT have a vote on offshore drilling? There’s a serious debate to be had over whether Congress should lift the ban on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf that has been in place since 1981. Unfortunately, you won’t be hearing it in the House of Representatives — certainly, you won’t find lawmakers voting on it — anytime soon.

Instead of dealing with the issue on the merits, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a staunch opponent of offshore drilling, has simply decreed that she will not allow a drilling vote to take place on the House floor. Why not? “What the president would like to do is to have validation for his failed policy,” she said yesterday when asked that very question. “What we’re saying is, ‘Exhaust other remedies, Mr. President.’ . . . It is the economic life of America’s families, and to suggest that drilling offshore is going to make a difference to them paycheck to paycheck now is a frivolous contention. The president has even admitted that. So what we’re saying is, ‘What can we do that is constructive?’ ”

If there is an explanation buried in there about why that makes offshore drilling off-limits for a vote, we missed it. Ms. Pelosi is correct that drilling is no panacea for the nation’s energy woes. The short-term effect of lifting the moratorium, if there were any, would be minimal. That doesn’t mean the country shouldn’t consider expanded drilling as one of many alternatives. There are legitimate concerns about the environmental impact of such drilling — environmental concerns that, we would note, exist in other regions whose oil Americans are perfectly happy to consume. But have technological improvements made such drilling less risky? Why not have that debate?

When they took the majority, House Democrats proclaimed that “bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the Minority the right to offer its alternatives.” Why not on drilling?

Meanwhile, the dispute has snarled progress on spending bills for fear of having drilling amendments attached. Citing “the uncertainty in how the oil and gas drilling issue is currently playing out on the Senate floor,” Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) called off committee consideration of spending bills on which Republicans were threatening to offer drilling amendments. The result threatens to be the first time since at least 1950 that lawmakers will go home for the August recess without either chamber having passed a single appropriations bill.

If drilling opponents really have the better of this argument, why are they so worried about letting it come to a vote?

Democrats know that if the Republican energy plans in both the House and Senate came to an up or down vote they would pass. But do the voter’s know that Democrats are still blocking ANY plan that would increase supply?

More Energy News:

Print This Post

This entry was posted on Friday, July 25th, 2008 at 10:24 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Trackbacks

8 comments so far

Gregory Dittman

Let’s go back to 1985 or so to see how politicans think. Fresh off major oil issues, gas becomes “cheaper.” Alternative energy plans are shelved because oil is much cheaper than any alternative energy plan. No nukes, no major solar plan, no wind farms and instead there was just oil to solve all the U.S. energy needs.

So what will happen if the U.S. does drill? Oil will probably get cheaper and then once again alternative energy plans will be shelved because they aren’t cost effective at the time and 12 years from now the oil prices will go back up, but then there would be no new oil to drill and once again the U.S. will be talking about alternative energy.

So what politican is to blame for problems that could have been solved 23 years ago? Definitely the majority of them. Red states could have put up nuclear plants, wind farms and put out a bunch of solar panels. Montana could have made the plants to turn coal to gasoline. Blue states could have done the same thing. Instead the issue was put off for for others to solve.

July 25th, 2008 at 11:56 am

stix1972

So we just pay higher and higher in gas prices while the magical alternative energyjust appears out of no where. Good plan. Destroy the economy in hopes that the magiacal a,ternative fairycomes down and bestows us with alternative fuels while the economy just goes farther and farther down.

Great plan you got there.

So let’s just use Norway’s plan and screw the poor and middle class and make driving a luxory. Then we canall suck off the govenrment for our little crumbs so wecan all getby. Excellent idea

July 25th, 2008 at 1:06 pm

MataHarley

Come on now, Stix… they *do* have “a plan”…

“Right now, our strategy on gas prices is ‘Drive small cars and wait for the wind,’ ” said a Democratic aide.

July 25th, 2008 at 1:16 pm

VR4

As one walks through the rain to a safety of the indoors, they are usually carrying an umbrella: It would be somewhat stupid to get all wet on the way.

We need a strong economy till we get to all of these great alternatives. We can’t have a strong economy when all of our transportation is crippled by the high energy prices. This effects not only the price of our commute, but anything that’s depended on transport. That would practically be everything.

A policy of undressing us and dumping us in the middle of Siberia so that would make us think of building a more heat efficient house is ludicrous. I guess its the: if it doesn’t kill you it makes you stronger policy. The only problem is dems are playing with millions of people lifes, none of them their own.

July 25th, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Wearyman

Gregory Dittman,

Your logic is flawed, and you are skipping over several very important facts.

1) Despite cheap gas prices, R&D into alternative fuel sources were indeed being developed. Unfortunately, alternatives like Wind and Solar were (and are still) immature technologies not yet ready for mass deployment.

2) The PRIMARY reason that more Nuclear was not deployed in the 1980’s was the environmental lobby and Liberal Democrat politicians. Republicans in general and Conservatives in particular WANTED more nuclear power, but Liberals in Congress and in the government bureaucracy stymied and thwarted them at every turn.

Even now, of the two Presidential candidates, ONLY THE REPUBLICAN, wants expanded Nuclear power capability. Trying to blame the lack of nuclear power on cheap gasoline prices is a strawman, and makes about as much sense as blaming the price of pork bellies on sunspots. The two are not related.

3) Most alternative FUEL options cannot supply our immediate consumer energy needs like simply going out and drilling for more of the readily available oil. Electric cars, while impressive, are still exorbitantly expensive toys for rich Hollywood leftist types (Example; the Tesla roadster, the ONLY non-golf-cart-sized fully road-worthy all-electric automobile in production, will have a production run of less than 100,000 units, and will cost in excess of $100,000.00 each.)

Corn Ethanol and Bio-diesel, while excellent for small-scale use, simply do not and cannot scale up to fully meet American demand, let alone worldwide demand. Sorry, we will not be “growing” our way out of Oil use.

4) All of the options you suggest (With the single exception of Nuclear; Again, NOT supported by leftists, enviros and Democrats!) are simply INCAPABLE of supplying proper baseline power for our energy needs, even IF we could all magically afford to buy all-electric cars. There just aren’t enough places with consistent sunshine or consistent winds (or people willing to let you build a massive and ugly solar or wind farm nearby) to provide enough power. Nuclear MUST be an option, BUT it will take at least several decades to fully “tool-up” into a nuclear economy.

Of course, none of the estimates on power PLANT changes to Nuclear even account for the ridiculous inadequacies of our powerGRID. The American powergrid is currently incapable of supplying the power needs of a nation of Electric car drivers.

5) Even if all of the above mentioned issues were not true, we would STILL need to drill for Oil. Why? Because Petroleum-based products are everywhere in our society, and the more hi-tech we become, the more oil we need.

I realize that you are skeptical, but trust me, I can remove your skepticism with a single word. What is that word? PLASTIC. Plastic is everywhere and in everything. From your car, to your house, to the grocery store, it’s everywhere. Heck, Modern medicine DEPENDS on petroleum-based plastic products. Without sterile plastic packaging, medical equipment, medical waste containers, etc. Modern medicine as we know it today simply could not exist. We MUST have oil, if not to fuel our cars, then to construct all the tools that make up a modern society. It’s inevitable, we have to have it.

Cheaper gasoline is just a very nice byproduct of the necessary drilling, and a wonderful stopgap measure while we continue to develop alternative energy options and upgrade our powergrid to handle the needs of the future.

One last point, and then I’m done. Have you ever asked yourself WHO the largest investors and researchers into alternative energy sources are? I can tell you who. It’s not governements, it’s not universities, and it’s not private citizens.

By far and away, the largest investors in, and researchers of Alternative energy sources are: Big Oil. They aren’t stupid. They want to be part of the future, and they have been investing in alternative energy for DECADES.

So stuff the stupid “cheaper gas means no alternative energy” argument. It’s a strawman, which I have just burned to ash.

Have a nice day!

July 25th, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Mike's America

Very correct Wearyman. We will continue to develop altnerative energy sources even if the price of gas goes down.

And VR4 put it very well. How will we have the resources to transition to that alternative energy future if our economy hasn’t got the gas to get there?

I’ve said this about a hundred times, so let’s make it a hundred and one: If we use the petroleum resources that are abundant in THIS country, we can take the tax and royalties on that supply and use it to fund the development and implementation of some alternative energy infrastructure.

I can’t see any virtue at all in destroying the American economy and placing more financial hardship on the middle class through higher energy prices.

July 25th, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Gregory Dittman

Companies not the federal government are responsible for nuclear plants, plus solar and wind farms. They will only do it when there is money to be made. There hasn’t been a nuclear power plant built for over 30 years, not even in the “red” states. Even while Republicans and Democrats scream for more nuclear power, they turn around and say they just don’t want the power plants and nuclear waste in their back yard. It takes 5 to 7 years to build a power plant (not including permits) and so far there are 34 applications for permits even when the oil prices are high. Not only that, some nuclear power plants might be taken off line in 12 years as they are deemed too old and have to be rebuilt. Electric plants that work on oil may also be taken offline as oil would be too expensive. Even if the oil is drilled and used up in 12 years, there has to be a replacement and they are not going to come unless forced to.

July 25th, 2008 at 10:36 pm

Wearyman

Gregory Dittman,

Again, you are conveniently ignoring and/or skipping over several important facts.

1) Yes, while Nuclear power plants ARE put up by private companies, the process to get approval for a nuclear plant up and running is entirely a governmental process. The process is such a bureaucracy that it makes your average DMV look like a “service oriented” company. Add to that the fact that the EPA can shut down the whole process almost by fiat, and you have a situation where a private company is investing millions into a project which may not even be allowed to break ground. Not to mention the virulently opposed Environmentalist groups who bring lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit and an entire political party dedicated to stopping ANY nuclear project from getting off the ground. Trying to set up a Nuclear plant becomes a money wasting exercise in futility. No wonder no company has bothered trying, regardless of whether they would be building in a “red state” or not.

2) You completely gloss over the fact that up until VERY recently, Wind and Solar have been immature technologies, and not ready for deployment. You also conveniently ignore that fact that Wind and Solar will NEVER be anything more than a supplemental power source, INCAPABLE of providing baseline power.

All this means that we have had more NatGas fired power plants built since 1999 than any other kind. It simply hasn’t been worthwhile to even TRY to build nuclear, it’s just too difficult due to factors totally unrelated to the price of Oil.

Let me reiterate that: The fact that no Nuclear power plants have been built in the last 30 years IS IN NO WAY related to the price of oil! While High oil prices CAN be ONE impetus to build, it is, by far and away, the LEAST important factor when dealing with the costs and ROI in building a Nuke Plant.

You can try and play that strawman all you want, but all it ultimately says is that you are living in an uninformed fantasy world, and your opinion is worth exactly nothing. I suggest you educate yourself somewhere OTHER than your favorite lefty/Enviro sites and join the rest of us in reality.

July 27th, 2008 at 6:56 am