Posted on 01/26/2007 6:30:16 AM PST by kellynla
The President is correct -- the U.S. is too dependent on foreign sources of energy, a necessary and vital component to national security. Government policies should do more to promote domestic energy production in all its forms, including but not exclusively related to motor fuels.
The fact of the matter is that the country is over 70% self-sufficient when we consider total energy (coal, nuclear, hydro, renewables, gas, etc). Although much of that dependence relates to oil, the U.S. does not import nearly as much from the Middle East as some suggest. As energy expert Daniel Yergin recently pointed out in the Wall Street Journal, “[s]ome 81% of oil imports do not come from that region. Thus, only 19% of imports -- and 12% of total petroleum consumption -- originates in the Middle East.” It may surprise many readers that the U.S. imports most of its oil not from Arab Sheiks but from our friends in Canada.
Yet, even though North America is blessed with abundant energy resources, small businesses, manufacturers, and families across the country have experienced high and volatile energy prices. The reason: our energy and environmental policies are conflicted. Even former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan noted, “[w]e have been struggling to reach an agreeable tradeoff between environmental and energy concerns for decades. I do not doubt we will continue to fine-tune our areas of consensus. But it is essential that our policies be consistent.”
In my leadership position, I have worked to make our policies more consistent, but the challenges are formidable. Although many Democrats say that they are concerned with high energy prices they consistently vote against reasonable policies that would lower them, and in fact pursue policies that increase them. For example, Democrats have repeatedly voted against proposals to increase oil and gas production (remember ANWR?). Further, members of the Massachusetts delegation snuck a provision into the transportation bill that effectively blocked construction of an already certified Liquefied Natural Gas Terminal in Falls River. What is particularly galling about this example is not that they blocked a project that would reduce gas prices in the region by 20 percent, but that they expect the rest of us to pay for it. After they blocked the project they sought to increase funding (aka, your money) for the Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program -- one that largely benefits the cold Northeast.
In an effort to reduce motor fuel prices, I tried to move the Gas PRICE Act (S. 1772) -- a bill that would improve the permitting process for the construction of new and expansion of existing petroleum, renewable fuel, and coal-to-liquids facilities. Although both Democrat Presidential front-runners, Senators Clinton and Obama claim to support biofuels and coal-to-liquids, they both voted against my bill. Instead, they voted in favor of a Democrat alternative that would socialize refining capacity by placing the Environmental Protection Agency in charge of designing and operating these facilities. Thankfully, their proposal was defeated along party lines last Congress. I remain concerned about what they may try now that they are in the majority.
The Democrats’ response to the State of the Union was exceptional in its lack of information. Sen. Webb pointed out that our manufacturing base is hurting, yet he failed to mention that his party could have eased that pain years ago if they only joined Republicans to address the natural gas crisis. Instead, their party has pursued the not-in-my-backyard policies similar to their Massachusetts’ colleagues.
I have mixed feelings over the President’s proposal. I applaud his focus on increasing domestic energy production, and look forward to learning the details of the plan, where I expect to find quite a number of devils. As the past chairman of the Committee with jurisdiction over motor fuels, I held several hearings on ethanol. The President’s proposal raises many important questions that must carefully be weighed before proceeding. The nation’s fuels and distribution system is complex and we must consider the unintended consequences to the related industries, but most importantly to motorists and families across the country.
Secure energy supply must be grounded in three key principles -- stable, diverse, and affordable. I hope that the President will convince me that his proposal meets that test. In the meantime, I encourage him to broaden the proposal to include all forms of domestic energy production including oil, gas, nuclear, coal, as well as renewable forms. I also encourage my Democratic colleagues to move beyond their rhetoric and embrace the energy that has made this country great -- unfortunately, I am not too optimistic that will happen, as long as the anti-growth forces hold such sway in the Democrat Party.
And, when Mrs. Clinton returns to office what exactly will change, in your opinion, other than socialist control over free enterprise then?
That's because they have no spine.
Since it's Friday and you're new around here;
I will be nice. LOL
You're assuming Clinton is the next POTUS.
There are alternatives.
Like the GOP getting a spine & testicle implant.
Then convincing Dick Cheney that for the good of the party and the good of the country;
he has to run for POTUS.
And my suggestion would be Michael Steele as his running mate.
Gotta go.
Have a good one, newbie.
Sure they have, and many individual stated have also. Problem is that the vast majority is pumped into special R&D programs and tax breaks who are actively installing energy conservation measures. You may not see it because you are not involved with the many DOE, etc. programs. You must also balance this with those who don't like seeing tax dollars going into these programs.
If you can't offer any documentation in rebuttal then do us all a favor and give us an advance warning when you are going to "break wind." LMAO
"Always Whining Caucus?"
In the mean time, post this on your nose
" NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts."
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
http://www.energy.gov/
http://www.eere.energy.gov/
Congress could & should have pushed forward legislation that would have allowed drilling in ANWR and the Gulf
That oil isn't going anywhere so it's just a part of out reserves. The real mission is to become independent thru conservation and alternative technologies.
I'd love to see Senator Inhofe throw his hat in the ring for '08.
You still haven't provided any documentation/links of what exactly the DOE, GOP or any other lettered organization has done to make this country more energy independent since the GOP gained the majority in Congress 12 years ago?
I still believe Cheney is the best qualified for the job and the only one who can beat Clinton in '08!
It doesn't matter how much we import from the Middle East because oil is a fungible commodity bought and sold on a global market at a global price. So long as the Middle East continues to have a large market share in the world oil market, events there will continue to be a source of oil price volatility regardless of how little or how much we actually import from there.
Wow, what a genius. /sarcasm off
The Re-bumble-cans led by a president that wanted a "new tone" in Washington had the opportunity to fix the big problems but in the end they all just blew money on garbage like giving billions to Africa for "aids", etc.
The president's "new tone" involved turning the other cheek to the Democrats. The Republicnas in Congress generally followed the presidents ill-advised "new tone" and because of this they lost the respect of their base and they lost their power. The Democrats on the other hand kept smashing the Republicans "up side" the head and worked in unison.
The Democrats were easy to counter. All it took was one or two of their idiot issues to hammer back on and if the Republicans did this in unision they would not be where they are today. Human nature is such that people don;t follow the weak and the president and the Republicans looked weak so they were weak.
Frankly, I'm sick of everyone in washington.
"the president and the Republicans looked weak so they were weak."
Exactly! And that's why the GOP finds itself in the minority after only 12 years and unless someone like Cheney who I prefer comes forward to run against Clinton in '08 then the 'Rats will hold the WH too!
"I'm sick of everyone in washington."
I couldn't agree with you more.
But we needn't throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water;
we just need a majority of TRUE BLUE CONSERVATIVES in office.
Also, I don't think Clinton is as tough as you do.
Cheney's is in better health than FDR & JFK!
And before anyone starts talking about his age;
Cheney would be younger than Reagan when he was elected POTUS.
"he can't win?"
The only way "he can't win" is if he doesn't run!
I learned a long time ago,
the last four letters of American are "I Can!"
In fiscal year 2004 alone, EERE awarded approximately $506 million in financial assistance.
DOE announced on January 23rd that it will issue $17 million in solicitations to support technologies to improve vehicle efficiency and use of E85 fuel.Congress and the President Encourage Agencies to Use ESPCs.
Congress and the President encourage agencies to use ESPCs to finance and implement efficiency improvements and meet their energy goals. Legislation authorizing ESPCs was enacted in 1992, and DOE promulgated regulations for their use in 1995. Super ESPCs were placed to streamline the process in 1998, and ESPCs were reauthorized through 2016 by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
More than 400 ESPC projects have been awarded by 19 different federal agencies in 46 states. $1.9 billion has been invested in U.S. federal facilities through ESPCs, saving 16 trillion Btu annually, equivalent to the energy used by a city of about 450,000.
The State Energy Program (SEP) provides grants to states and directs funding to state energy offices from technology programs in DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. States use grants to address their energy priorities and program funding to adopt emerging renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Promoting America's energy security through reliable, clean, and affordable energy
Keeping America economically strong requires reliable, clean, and affordable energy, and the best way to achieve this is through competitive energy markets, science-driven technology, and supportive government policies.
Technological advances enable Americans to use new energy sources that did not exist 50, 100, or even 200 years ago. Well-functioning energy markets, supplemented by effective government collaboration, incentives, and regulation, stimulate the private investment and competition necessary to spur the adoption of new technologies. New technological advances in energy supply, distribution, and utilization will help ensure we meet the energy challenges of the 21st Century.
The Department’s principal tool for advancing technology is investing in high-risk, high-payoff energy research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) that the private sector would not or could not develop alone in our market-based economy. Since 2001, the Department has invested nearly $10 billion developing and promoting the use of cleaner, more affordable, and more reliable alternative energy sources and DOE is on the threshold of incredible scientific and technological advances that will change how we power our homes, businesses, and automobiles. In January 2006, the President announced the Advanced Energy Initiative to dramatically accelerate research on domestically available fuels that will diversify the Nation’s use of energy sources and help reduce America’s dependence on foreign resources.
thanks, now that's some documentation.
do you have any links for the stats you quote?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.