Slowtwitch Forums: Lavender Room: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil

Calendar Retailers Stack & Reach Custom Geometry Calculator (beta) More To Come...
		MAIN INDEX	RULES & LEGEND	LOG IN

Search for (options)

Newsletter Signup

Slowtwitch Forums: Lavender Room:
Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil

1 2 3 4

View All

MattinSF

Jul 1, 08 12:11

Post #1 of 77 (651 views)

Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil	Can't Post

We have had a renewable energy tax credit program in this country for many years and it has helped make the US the world's leader in solar, wind and other renewable energy technology. Yesterday the Senate voted to kill that program and therefore increase our reliance on foreign oil. Many of thse research programs were working on clean energy for electric vehicles, solar cell technology, battery technology, and different ways to wean us off dirty foreign oil

Here are the senators who voted nay and killed the clean tech green jobs John McCain has been trumpeting on the campaign trail....anyone see a pattern?

Nays
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Wicker (R-MS)
----------------------------------------------------------
"Personally, I think a McCain presidency would be a disaster as he proceeds to piss off everyone."

ajfranke

jkca1

Jul 1, 08 12:53

Post #2 of 77 (596 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MattinSF] [In reply to]	Can't Post

RE: Anyone see a pattern?

They voted in alphabetical order?

"Obama for President."

David in FL

Jul 1, 08 13:15

Post #3 of 77 (584 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MattinSF] [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

Yesterday the Senate voted to kill that program and therefore increase our reliance on foreign oil.

Perhaps you could let us know the specifics? Exactly how much additional "foreign oil" are we going to have to import since this particular tax credit no longer exists.

Please show your work........

"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in a grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."

Theodore Roosevelt

MJuric

Jul 1, 08 13:21

Post #4 of 77 (573 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [David in FL] [In reply to]	Can't Post

I would also like to know how 44 senators killed a bill in a house that has 100 in it. Seems we're missing some nay voters :-)

~Matt

MattinSF

Jul 1, 08 13:23

Post #5 of 77 (575 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MJuric] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Being a tax credit the vote needs 2/3.
----------------------------------------------------------
"Personally, I think a McCain presidency would be a disaster as he proceeds to piss off everyone."

ajfranke

PeckerHead

Jul 1, 08 13:28

Post #6 of 77 (564 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MattinSF] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Did any of those bastards give an explanation for their vote? If so, what was it?

MJuric

Jul 1, 08 13:29

Post #7 of 77 (565 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MattinSF] [In reply to]	Can't Post

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=52824

Maybe I'm reading this wrong but from this article it would appear that it's the Dems that are blocking the bill. From the article;

The issues bringing the clean energy tax extensions to a stalemate have to do with how H.R. 6049 will be paid for. Democratic leadership in both houses of Congress have said that extensions must be paid by a decrease somewhere else in the federal budget. Republican leadership has said that tax credit extensions don't fit that rule because they are in fact a stimulus and have gotten behind extension legislation deviod of offsets.

If this is true it would appear that the Dems are holding the bill up and trying to change it from it's origin passed for in 1986 as a tax credit and are looking for the tax credit to be "Offset" by budgetary cuts elsewhere.

This is rather odd as A) the dems are typically not looking for cuts and B) typically back anything at any cost that is green. If anything this puts the Reps squarely in a Dem position and the Dems are voting against it.

So wait...who's increasing our dependency on foreign oil?

~Matt

MJuric

Jul 1, 08 13:31

Post #8 of 77 (557 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [PeckerHead] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Both of you might want to actually check out what was being voted on. It was not whether or not the credit will be discontinued or not, but how it will be "funded". Apparently "those bastards" don't want any changes and the other guys are actually holding up the show by trying to change the original bill.

But I could be reading it all wrong, I've done that before.

~Matt

JSA

Jul 1, 08 13:35

Post #9 of 77 (552 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MattinSF] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Wait, wait, wait! Is this the tax credit that expired once before in 2004? This is the one that was to expire on Dec 31, 2007, but was extended, right?

This is the same one that would provide money for wind farms, the same wind farms that the liberal tree-huggers have potested against b/c of the threat to migratory birds!

Matt -- these are your people. The same ones who cried foul (or should that be "fowl") at the bids to increase wind farms b/c of potential harm to the birdies! Now, you people want more money for the wind farms!

WHAT DO YOU PEOPLE WANT?!?!?!?!?

_______________________________________________

"My better is better than your better." - LT, via Nike

The people who keep me moving:

TRANSITION - Get Moving!

JSA

Jul 1, 08 13:39

Post #10 of 77 (544 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MattinSF] [In reply to]	Can't Post

On a serious note, be fair and identify the actual issue in this matter. This wasn't about the tax credits, just how they were to be paid. MJuric is correct in identifying why the vote resulted the way it did.

Come on now, tell the whole story...

_______________________________________________

"My better is better than your better." - LT, via Nike

The people who keep me moving:

TRANSITION - Get Moving!

MattinSF

Jul 1, 08 13:50

Post #11 of 77 (532 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [JSA] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Who are you calling "you people"? be careful where you wave that broad brush of yours.

SHOCKER!!! fiscally responsible Democrats in a futile effort to try and slow down the haemoraging of our federal budget want to find a way for this program to pay for itself...first they proposed a roll back of subsidies given to big oil companies...Reps said no dice...then they tried to cut tax breaks to companies that outsource jobs...Reps said no way Jose...then they tried to close the hedge fund manager tax loophole....not on our watch said the Reps! So the bill dies and the tax credits die because Republicans will only vote for it if we put it on the credit card.

Even the business community is blaming the Republican caucus for this one...look no further than the home page of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group tpo see where they are pointing their finger.
----------------------------------------------------------
"Personally, I think a McCain presidency would be a disaster as he proceeds to piss off everyone."

ajfranke

MJuric

Jul 1, 08 13:59

Post #12 of 77 (519 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MattinSF] [In reply to]	Can't Post

If indeed the goal was to get thru a bill that dealt with renewable energy why not pass the bill as it was? It's been that way since 1986 and was passed by a democratic house and Republican senate back then. Seems if it was a major issue it could have EASILY been stopped in the 253/182 house at that time.

So why not run it thru as is and then make other budgetary changes?

~Matt

MattinSF

Jul 1, 08 14:02

Post #13 of 77 (517 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MJuric] [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

Our budget malaise has never been this dire so the need to make the changes has never been as prescient...we had balanced budgets back then...at least for the 8 years Clinton was President.
----------------------------------------------------------
"Personally, I think a McCain presidency would be a disaster as he proceeds to piss off everyone."

ajfranke

JSA

Jul 1, 08 14:07

Post #14 of 77 (508 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MattinSF] [In reply to]	Can't Post

fiscally responsible Democrats in a futile effort to try and slow down the haemoraging of our federal budget want to find a way for this program to pay for itself

That's the funniest thing you have said all day! I love how the Dems use the term "pay for itself." That implies that the program actually generates money and is self-sustaining as opposed to being funded by the fed govt. I love that term and need to find a way to incorporate it more into my daily speak.

Starbucks Girl: Here is your grande triple shot half-caff non-fat no whip mocha latte. That will be $4.67
JSA: Yeah, I would like to find a way for this program to pay for itself.
Starbucks Girl: What?
JSA: Yeah, see, I'm trying to slow down the hemoraging of funds from my wallet, so, I need to find a way for this program to pay for itself.
Starbucks Girl: But sir, you need to pay.
JSA: No, see, I'm fically responsible, so, I'm gonna need a way for this program to pay for itself.
Starbucks Girl: That doesn't work sir.
JSA: Well, MattinSF says it does.
Starbucks Girl: Who?
JSA: You un-enlightened peon! I am done with you! [Drives off]

_______________________________________________

"My better is better than your better." - LT, via Nike

The people who keep me moving:

TRANSITION - Get Moving!

tim-mech

Jul 1, 08 14:28

Post #15 of 77 (491 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [JSA] [In reply to]	Can't Post

"This is the same one that would provide money for wind farms, the same wind farms that the liberal tree-huggers have potested against b/c of the threat to migratory birds!"

"Well, there you go again..." (say it in your best Daddy Reagan voice). The history of that little dis-information gem tracks back not to "tree huggers" but specifically a birdy lover that loved birds but wasn't very knowlegeable about bird mortality as it relates to power generation.

See, as has been pointed out by the "tree huggers", the damage already done by fossil fuels (oil spills, acid rain, loss of habitat due to resource extraction) to world bird populations dwarfs by many orders of magnitude the number of birds killed by wind power generation farms. So your snide assertion is simple parroting (hah!) the propaganda of the coal and fossil power special interests.

Furthermore, man made climate change stands to make extinct huge numbers of birds and other animals so if renewable, non emitting power generation smokes a couple of bird brained individuals, but gets us off the greenhouse gas freight train, then I think that's the way to go.

Tim

#########################################

"Show me a guy who works to keep his family together, spends time with his kids, dates his wife, and compromises on his training sessions....I'll show a guy who's family is important to them." -MJuric

"Corrective action is blocked by vested interests, by well-intentioned political and business leaders, and by their electorates, all of whom are perfectly correct in not noticing big changes from year to year. Instead, each year there are just somewhat more people, and somewhat fewer resources, on Earth."-Jared Diamond

Cavechild

Jul 1, 08 15:01

Post #16 of 77 (471 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MattinSF] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Quote

SHOCKER!!! fiscally responsible Democrats

Ha Ha Ha you kill me. I'm guessing your definition of fiscally responsible Democrats are they guys who continue to fund the Iraq war, and passed out billions in dollars in rebate checks. Are they the one's you are talking about? But hey when you've blown billions in Iraq and on rebate checks without wondering where the money to pay for them is going to come from, picking a couple hundred million dollar issue is where to draw the line. I'll take a diet coke with my Big-Mac and Super Sized fries please.

Monk

Jul 1, 08 15:28

Post #17 of 77 (456 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MattinSF] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Matt--I'm not sure, now. Are you in favor of drilling in the ANWR and offshore?

HOPE is not a plan.
CHANGE is not a plan.
BELIEVE is not a plan.

MattinSF

Jul 1, 08 15:58

Post #18 of 77 (444 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [Monk] [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

Matt--I'm not sure, now. Are you in favor of drilling in the ANWR and offshore?

Absolutely not. Increasing domestic drilling is akin to giving a dying addict one last hit. the only way to save the addict is to get him off the drug, not find new ways to feed it to him. Offshore drilling will just prolong our unsustainable behavior and is counter productive.

We consume 25% of the worlds reserves and we only possess 3% of the deposits....do the math, we can't drill our way out of this problem, if we want to be OIL independent we need to drill ALL those coastal and ANWR fields AND reduce our consumption by 90%. Do you really think that will happen? No it won't, so why even go down that route.

Just take oil out of the equation and start funding renewable alternative home grown energy and we are on our way to oil and energy independence.
----------------------------------------------------------
"Personally, I think a McCain presidency would be a disaster as he proceeds to piss off everyone."

ajfranke

dave_w

Jul 1, 08 16:18

Post #19 of 77 (437 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MattinSF] [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

We consume 25% of the worlds reserves and we only possess 3% of the deposits....do the math, we can't drill our way out of this problem, if we want to be OIL independent we need to drill ALL those coastal and ANWR fields AND reduce our consumption by 90%. Do you really think that will happen?

That has all changed recently, with shale oil production feasible, and huge new finds here in the good ole US. Bakken, etc I agree though, that sitting back and sucking up these reserves, in lieu of massive alternative fuels research, is a bad idea. In my mind pragmatism dictates that we take a middle road that includes both.

ps. Look for stories on a new rash of millionaires in North Dakota! Rather them than more wealth transfer to the mideast.

"It's all about self-esteem"

MattinSF

Jul 1, 08 16:23

Post #20 of 77 (434 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [dave_w] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Shale oil will take longer to get to market than offshore oil.

try again.
----------------------------------------------------------
"Personally, I think a McCain presidency would be a disaster as he proceeds to piss off everyone."

ajfranke

Gozerman

Jul 1, 08 16:26

Post #21 of 77 (431 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MattinSF] [In reply to]	Can't Post

If you have access to today's Wall Street Journal, there is an excellent piece written by a Harvard economist (Martin Feldstein) on how the current price of oil is dictated by expectations of future prices based on future supply and demand. He explains very clearly how policy changes today (drilling OS/ANWR and conservation) that address both supply and demand will change the forecast for future prices and directly impact current prices. Pretty interesting reading and I think points to what a majority of what I hear Americans feel -- we need to do it all. Alternative, nuclear, increased oil exploration, better fuel economy, better public transportation, etc.

Basically, if oil producers believe that supply will be flat in the future and demand will rise, they will hold their inventory (i.e., what oil is in the ground) until the price rises to make it worthwhile (i.e., they'd rather have cash than oil) at which point they will supply it. Worth reading if you can find it -- was the first good explanation I've seen of the market mechanics.

dave_w

Jul 1, 08 16:28

Post #22 of 77 (429 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MattinSF] [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

Shale oil will take longer to get to market than offshore oil.

try again.

Like I said, try to keep up:

"In less than a year, Stohler and his wife, Lorene, 82, have become millionaires from the production of one well on their land near Dunn Center, a mile or so from the sod home where Oscar grew up. A second well has begun producing on their property and another is being drilled � all aimed at the Bakken shale formation, a rich deposit that the U.S. Geological Survey calls the largest continuous oil accumulation it has ever assessed."

http://www.startribune.com/nation/22707004.html

"It's all about self-esteem"

David in FL

Jul 1, 08 17:59

Post #23 of 77 (415 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MattinSF] [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

Shale oil will take longer to get to market than offshore oil.

try again.

....and the longer you wait to get started, the longer it'll take.

"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in a grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."

Theodore Roosevelt

peter826

Jul 1, 08 18:13

Post #24 of 77 (411 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [dave_w] [In reply to]	Can't Post

There is a difference between the Bakken shale formation and making oil out of shale rock. The Bakken formation can be drilled like an oil well (albeit with horizontal and other newer technology) and produce oil much like a standard well. People have been drilling in the Bakken shale formation for decades. It just didn't produce much oil until newer drilling techniques came online in the last decade or so.

Creating oil from shale rock ("shale oil") requires removing shale rock, processing, etc. This process is extermely energy and water intensive and is not even worth thinking about.

(This post was edited by peter826 on Jul 1, 08 18:15)

dave_w

Jul 1, 08 18:19

Post #25 of 77 (404 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [peter826] [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

Creating oil from shale rock ("shale oil") requires removing shale rock, processing, etc. This process is extermely energy and water intensive and is not even worth thinking about.

Yeah, I'm aware of that, that's what I meant about it being financially feasible at the higher bbl price. I believe there are new methods of extraction in the works for shale oil as well. Still water intensive though.

"It's all about self-esteem"

1 2 3 4

View All