Posted on 08/23/2012 6:47:59 AM PDT by MulberryDraw
The campaign for presumed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney laid out a plan Wednesday for America to be energy independent by 2020.
On an embargoed conference call with reporters, Romney staffers touched on familiar themes they said would wean the country off imported oil and spark an economic boom at home. Namely, they called for fewer regulations and more drilling.
The staffers pointed to the revolution in drilling technology in recent years that's unlocked an energy boom in this country, and contrasted that with President Obama's support for renewable energy, which they said has failed to pay off.
"There's incredible potential for the development of these resources, but it's something President Obama has been doing his best to stifle," said Oren Cass, Romney's domestic policy director. "Governor Romney embraces this revolution."
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...
First he has to get rid of Obama’s Orwellian Dept.of Energy. This agency of course produces absolutely no energy and does everything it can to prevent the production of coal and oil. A second Obama term will see an assault on natural gas production. Can’t have fracking you know.
The liberals will hyperventilate about this.
I know Romney said he would okay the Keystone Pipeline, and that blocking that is a liberal cause celebre.
Same with offshore drilling.
Liberals are frustrated because Republicans want to tap into the oil tar sands (not sure of correct terminology) out west. There is the equivalent of billions of barrels of oil in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and some other western states, in rock and shale and sand deposits. But the liberal view is that it hurts the environment to get at these oil deposits.
Interesting to see all the oil drilling going on in North Dakota nowadays. Contrast that with California. There are major offshore oil deposits in Calif. but offshore drilling was banned there after the Santa Barbara oil spill.
We can achieve energy independence if we use coal and natural gas to create ethanol, instead of corn. Auto manufacturers already have E85 cars for 85% ethanol, which can come from coal. Baseline power generation can come from thorium reactors.
The barriers to energy production and exploration, put up by the left, have to be removed. It’s a step in the RIGHT direction.
It is not important for the U.S. to actually be “energy independent.” It’s important that the U.S. (and our allies) not be “dependent” on any particular source of energy from an unstable region of the world. For example, if we import oil from Canada, not a problem.
We are within reach of NET energy independence, by which I mean our exports of coal and natural gas equal our imports of oil.
Over time, we can become a big net exporter of energy, in various forms, given our tremendous discoveries of new reserves, advances in the extraction of energy from sources currently in production, and continuing advances in energy efficiency. Renewables remain a very small part of the picture; but, who knows, tapping into solar, wind or geothermal offers tremendous potential (personally, I think geothermal has the most potential).
Plus there is the need for more energy infrastructure (pipelines, refineries, transmission wires).
Production and distribution of energy can be the engine of a revival of our stalled economy. The catalyst for a revival, across the boards, of all of our industries. It can pull our home out from under-water, strengthen our retirement portfolios, close the budget deficit. It is a really important part of all the economic objectives of the next administration.
Under current law, the federal government controls oil, coal and gas permits for federal lands. But in a speech at an oilfield services company in Hobbs. N.M., Romney will argue that determination should be up to state officials, insisting individual states are in a better position to “develop, adopt and enforce regulations” on local basis than the federal government—which his campaign says has been unduly influenced by Washington politics.
We’ve been promised engergy independence for decades. Haven’t seen it yet.
A crucial component of Mitt Romney’s Plan for a Stronger Middle Class is to dramatically increase domestic energy production and partner closely with Canada and Mexico to achieve North American energy independence by 2020. While President Obama has described his own energy policy as a “hodgepodge,” sent billions of taxpayer dollars to green energy projects run by political cronies, rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline as not in “the national interest,” and sought repeatedly to stall development of America’s domestic resources, Romney’s path forward would establish America as an energy superpower in the 21st century.
His 2020 plan is for North America to be energy independent, not the US. Some of the early reporting is confusing the two. His plan is linked above (and still short on details).
Plenty of details for pre election. It's a POLICY with a specific agenda. No more is needed at this time. The electorate wouldn't care about boring details, or understand them.
Absolutely. If we have to import energy, it should be from sources friendly to our interests. But I think the goal of "energy independence" (which I understand as producing all our energy domestically) is still worth pursuing.
Granted. It is a decent start.
It folks like me (a real small percentage of the voting population) that want to see details. What I have read so far is a step in the right direction.
I think the the only way to North America to be energy independent in 8 short years would be a massive building of LNG exports along with massive growths in production. It would be a net independence measured in BTU’s.
That's the most impressive thing I've heard from the Romney camp yet. If only I could let myself believe that he means it.
I wish.
Because of my commute, I am dropping $100 on gas weekly. I can’t continue to afford this and I dread to think of what the price will be next year. I am really hopping 0 get’s thrown out on his ass.
You don’t need ethanol—it is a poor substitute—more like hamburger helper..ethanol is a subsidy that is given for corn producers, not a form of energy.
Haven’t been allowed to yet by government..
I know it is hamberger helper, but the intention of the ethanol mandate is to extend the life of fossil fuel. This can be done with coal and natural gas. We have enough natural gas to use as a fuel but we would need a new transportation infrastructure. But if we convert it to ethanol little infrastructure needs to be built. It is thirty percent cheaper to make ethanol this way. Corn can be used for food.
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.