 |
|
« Does Industry Money Taint Research? | Main | CAFTA Passes: Is It Good or Bad for Manufacturing? »
August 15, 2005
Does the Energy Bill Provide a Much-Needed Jolt?
Critics charge that the newly signed bill will do little to reduce current gas prices or reliance on foreign oil while proponents point out that it will benefit the environment. Who's right?
Last week, President Bush signed the country's first comprehensive energy bill (it's 1,724 pages long) in more than a decade. While he called it vital to the U.S. economy, he acknowledged that it offered no short-term relief from surging gasoline costs. The $14.5 billion legislation, passed by Congress after four years of debate, seeks to increase oil, natural gas and electricity supplies and encourages the use of alternative energy sources.
Supporters of the energy bill say it will...
• provide environmental benefits from incentives to electric utilities to curb coal emissions and from tax breaks for reducing foreign oil dependence through the use of fossil-fuel alternatives such as biodiesel and nuclear energy.
• boost oil drilling to reduce reliance on foreign sources (for example, it streamlines federal requirements to make it easier for producers to drill for oil and natural gas in the Rocky Mountains).
• make coal into a cleaner-burning fuel.
• stretch gasoline supplies through the increased use of home-grown, corn-based ethanol (though critics counter that the call for a boost in ethanol production is nothing more than a farm subsidy and will not help ease dependence on foreign oil).
Environmental groups and some Democrats are critical of...
• its extensive tax breaks, subsidies and loan guarantees which are seen as massive giveaways to big energy companies already posting near-record profits.
• its failure to curtail oil imports with more stringent fuel mileage requirements for gas-guzzling SUVs and other vehicles. This op-ed piece points out that "energy experts, at least the ones who aren't sucking industry sugar, agree that better mileage efficiency offers the fastest, cheapest and most productive way to displace a notable portion of our oil use and our dependence on sources abroad."
• its over-emphasis on oil and gas recovery and lack of focus on conservation and the development of alternative sources of energy.
• its blatant big-energy favoritism. According to this opinion piece, "Federal support for developing and marketing new energy sources, which are struggling to get established, is boosted, but still only to about a third of the largess that's to be lavished on the traditional energy industries."
Who's really benefiting?
"Big energy lobbyists may be cheering the bill's enactment, but ordinary Americans had better hold fast to their wallets," says Anna Aurilio, legislative director of U.S. Public Interest Research Group, as reported in this Reuters story. "As gasoline prices careen out of control, the bill keeps America speeding down the wrong road toward more oil consumption, more drilling, and more pollution."
Currently, the country relies on foreign oil to meet 60% of its daily petroleum demand of almost 21 million barrels. Gasoline use accounts for 2 out of every 5 barrels consumed.
Most Americans will feel the impact of the new law in 2007 when daylight-saving time is extended by three weeks in the spring and a week in the fall to save energy. Consumers will also be able to get tax breaks for installing more energy-efficient windows and solar panels on their homes and purchasing hybrid vehicles.
Columnist Tom Teepen has this to say about the legislation: "The best that can be said of the final bill is that its giveaways are not as wanton or its policies as irrelevant as in earlier versions."
What do you think of the newly passed bill?
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://news.thomasnet.com/mt41/mt-tb.cgi/158
|
Advertisement
|
Comment
44 CommentsThe bill does little to induce the energy efficiency of industrial heating facilities (multi family buildings, office buildings, Hotels, hospitals, etc.
The energy consumption of these fascilities can be resuced an average of 50% by replacing obsolete equipment. What is need is low interest loans and tax incentives.
August 16, 2005 12:37 PMIt will benefit politicians and corporations. It does not provide for the development of alternative energy sources or for the addition of new production facilities for electrical and refinery products.
August 16, 2005 12:41 PMUnless there are reductions in the demand for gasoline, there won't be any significant changes of gasoline prices. Supply is maxed out, and so is the U.S. refining capacity -- even if there was more oil, it couldn't be refined fast enough to keep up with demand.
If this bill is so great for the American people, then why was it promoted by the oil companies, who have us all in a vice anyway?
Toyota Prius, here I come!
August 16, 2005 12:47 PMWe must stop thinking of the short term benefits. What matters is what kind of earth will we be leaving for our future generations.
August 16, 2005 1:11 PMWas there anything in the bill about oil shale. I understand that a company by the name of Oil Tech from Utah has a retort that can produce oil at less than $20 per barrel. This be should be jumped all over. I understand we have the world's largest reserves of oil shale!!!!
August 16, 2005 1:54 PMI am elated. The country should have had an energy bill/policy 25 years ago. There needs to be a "stake in the ground". This bill is not going to be the end-all but a place to start. Is better than the crap shoot that we are in now.
Three cheers for George Bush!!!
August 16, 2005 2:00 PMWell if all the EnviroNazis are upset, maybe this will provide more energy for the country. I'm glad to see biodiesel making head way, every truck on the road should be burning B20 or better, with all the corn and grain we grow in the U.S., this should be a crime.
As for the frist post, hey Ed, if a hotel could cut its energy bill in half, then why doesn't the hotel just put in a new heater, probably pay for itself in less than a year, why should I pay for hotel heaters? Keith
I recently spent 1-1/4 hours travelling 12 miles on I95 in New Hampshire in 5 lanes of traffic to pay a $1 toll. I estimated that 5 lanes with 1 vehicle every 25 feet for 12 miles for 8 hrs/day on weekends and 4 hrs per day week days in two directions uses about 1 million gallons of gas per week in the summer season. There are many other tolls between Maine and Florida on I95 holding up traffic. The states should not be able to charge tolls directly on the highway.
August 16, 2005 2:27 PMI'm a critic of this bill. I think that it is far too generous the energy industry.
We ask nothing of them, why didn't congress increase CAFE, the only thing we ask the oil companies to do is "keep making money" and here's some of ours to help you make more.
I don't feel that enough of this money was devoted to urban mass transit systems, alt energy and green development. Installation of solar panels on government buildings would be a better idea than extending daylight savings time an hour. How much oil would that save & how do you calculate that?
August 16, 2005 3:38 PMThis bill is extremely short sighted. To any thinking mind,giving these kinds of breaks to the energy companies and at the same time carving up Amtrack,leaving mass transportation systems to flounder and leaving real energy efficiency to chance is absurd. I don't personally see any chance for energy savings by doing something as effortless as extending daylight savings time. At the times of the year the extension is effected,surely what's gained in the evening will mostly be gobbled up in the morning.
August 16, 2005 4:39 PMwe can't expect much rationality from W in this matter and the Congress is too gutless in the face of lobies from energy and auto to have passed new CAFE criteria---the most meaningful action they could take at this point.
August 16, 2005 4:51 PMWhen it comes to an energy bill, I cannot help but reflect on the humorous phrase, "Hi, I'm from the U.S. Government and I am here to help".
If there was any way to stop the government from deciding which technology will rule the day, it should have been done. So far much of the present oil price crisis is based on the "tail", oil speculators, wagging the "dog", the actual market. This is upside down and a good example of how much we have to pay when a small group of people "speculators" in this case are in charge of a market, have instant communication to the world and NO percieved motivation to back down the price.
Freeing up enterprise to innovate is a good idea. The problem comes when the only companies eligible for this or any form of government largess or freedom are just the "big guys" or those companies run by con-men eager to capitalize on tax credits and breaks.
But I'm all for drilling in ANWAR. The fourteen people besides the two thousand Eskimos who see ANWAR during the months that dont have snow can just deal with less than 1/10th of 1% of the land populated by some drilling rigs and pipe. As for the Caribou et cetera, they won't even belch.
By the way, did you hear? the bubble is about to burst BIG TIME on oil futures.
August 16, 2005 5:27 PMThis energy bill is not worth the paper it is printed on. Oil is a finite source of energy. Whether it is 10 years or 50 its supply will come to an end. What will our children and grandchildren think of us? Probably that a few wealthy stock holders of energy and automobile manufacturing companies made a lot of money speculating with this source of energy and nobody did enything to improve fuel efficiency in our gas guzzlers and our government did not launch a program to aggressively solve this most serious problem.
August 16, 2005 7:10 PMAgenda's, Agenda's from the right and Agenda's from the left - where will it stop. For more that the 12 years we did not have an energy bill, we (as a country) needed to look to the future. One of the first thing the President did was to present an energy bill that congress (because of the like of many like you) would not act on. If it had been in effect years ago, we would have been having the problems we have today with high prices. If fact, the foreign countries would not have us over the BARREL OF CRUED. If we can send someone to Mars we can do a better job with the worlds resources. So shutup and get to work on solutions! Be the America we can be!
August 16, 2005 10:49 PMI think the energy bill is mostly a big giveaway to the oil companies, with a little bone to alternatives.
August 17, 2005 10:11 AMThis latest Energy Bill, took too long to be originated and passed, and requires annual improvement.-----------------------------
My vehicle has electronic measurement of fuel consumption, and recently during an experiment to see benefit of reducing vehicle speed, and its effect on consumption, it was evident over a 5 mile stretch, that consumption can be reduced by about 20 % if speed was reduced to around a steady 60 mph. However when in the right lane, and I reduced my speed to around 60 on I-95, overtaking vehicles would pile up behind me, and become a safety issue in attempting to pass around me into the Left lane stream, operating @ their 5 mph believed safe overspeed to 75+ mph. So, to make an immediate impact to reduce Gasoline consumption, we should reimpose reduced speed on Interstates, and local country roads to a speed around 60 mph, with zero tolerance for overspeed, and severe progressive fines for speeding, to immediate confiscation of the vehicle (to be later adjuducated) for those exceeding 80 mph. We should retain this reduced speed limit until 65 % of the vehicles operating are improved fuel consumption designs, hybrids or ??.
Additionally, the long distance trucking system should be given priority redesign, toward an objective of reducing truck hauling of a load , to achieve a maximum haul of 250 miles, 90% of the time, within 10 years. Containers, working within a constantly improving automated handling system, transported by rail shall be the mode for hauls greater than 250 miles. As the system is developed, the 250 miles limit should be lowered as it becomes enabled as a city or region designs its transportation systems. It will take years to implement, but, tax incentives, and targeted subsidies, plus compensation for social impacts, will make it happen faster. Excess profits enabled by this government plan, shall be taxed at 65%. Planned profiteering by individuals, and companies shall be punished with 2X sentences and 10X fines as compared to WWII legislation. --------------------------------
To add more refinery capability in the U.S, immediately, Congress should authorize the design, and construction of four refinerys, strategically located, and hardened for defense, and security, within existing Military bases. Their purpose shall be to produce Oil based products for use of DOD. The products shall include Aviation fuels, Diesel, and products for the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force. Objective shall be 300 % capacity of the Hydrocarbon usage of the D.O.D. during Desert Storm period in 1991. Once the DOD usage capacity has been achieved, the facilities may switch to Civilian production as their designs enable efficiently. Pipelines from the Ports, (or locations which source the raw petroleum) shall be funded, as well as pipelines to connect output to the National Pipeline grid shall be constructed. Federal government shall pay for usage of civilian infrastructure for the production output in accord with usual competitive bidding and cost charging permitted by law. Management shall be performed by an expert Civilian Company, selected by competitive bidding each 5 years, annually reviewed for retention within its 5 year contract. Excess profits enabled by this government production plan, shall be taxed at 65%. Planned profiteering by individuals, and companies shall be punished with 2X sentences and 25X fines as compared to WWII legislation.
August 17, 2005 11:28 AMThanks W for the energy bill it didn't go far enough though. With all the noise put up by the tree huggers we are short on refining capacity. We can't afford to build NEW Refinerys for the final product and EPA will not under current rules allow Primary refining on shore in the U.S. Also WHY ? do we refine coal in one area and ship it out because it will not not Meet EPA standards for that area and ship in coal from another area 700 miles away that they say does. requiring 7 unit trains a week per generatng station. How much engergy does that take in crude oil. Also The population center of the U.S. is not the Potomac or Hudson rivers. The people complaining about the Oil Companys might to check if their on retirement programs are not invested in them or their 401's are invested in them. If so they own the Oil Companies. Speak Up with KNOWLEDGE. don't repeat it if you don'tknow what your talking about.
August 17, 2005 11:34 AMI was happy to see some constructive comments concerning the energy situation other than the knee
jerk "blame it on the automobile" rational. This knee jerk rational is evidenced in the article itself as it notes "2 of every 5 barrels of oil are consume in gasoline". Would one not be more concerned about the 60% used for other items? Would you not want to look at the relative importance to the economy of some of these consumptive porducts?
The effect on the economy of gasoline consumption and the lack of its availability is evident in almost every walk of life and although there are various programs and scams to do something about it...the cost and energy [read use of oil/oil related items] will far outstrip the energy [read
gasoline] saved in the short and medium term. A review of the amounts of oil related in non-essential plastics in the consumer market can yield considerable savings. Disposable plastic items on the shelves of grocery stores is outragous when equated to gallons of oil required.
The US trucking and airline industry is out of control...de-regulation has fostered more capacity
and under-utilized miles all to the over usage of fuel. Savings in fuel usage in a semi tractor that gets 6 miles per gallon and is running at less than trailer capacity to meet the advertised delivery schedule and the airline
that competes with others un-regulated as to true
passenger need to secure market share "eats" more
fuel than any forseable change that technology can afford in the internal combustion engine in automobiles. Our congress has attached consumption
requirements to those least likely to effect real consumption economies and left those with the campaign buck to spend an open door to the oil vault. From a tax and license point of view, in the state of Indiana an automobile is licensed and taxed on its new cost. If you have the ability to
buy a vehicle that is gas efficient and it costs
more than the base Detroit piece of crap...you are penalized, not rewarded. Large pick-up trucks are the way to go in this state..if you can lie with a straight face, own a few acres, you can license it as a farm vehicle for pennies aganist the dollars an urban dweller pays for the same truck or a more fuel efficient passenger car. But, ther poor famer needs help...most have fuel tanks on their property...they do not pay state taxes on the fuel as it is "used in farm production" and they need all the help they can get. On the next day you can hear them complain that the small farmer is gone and the big corporations have taken over. If this is true, and it must be, they swear it constantly, why the need for license cuts and why drive the big gas guzzling trucks? Gas from bio-mass crops is the latest farm swindle...costs more to make and requires more energy to produce and it yields. How can a basically over-produced crop with minimal actual value a few hundered miles from the refining/production facility cost more per gallon as a gas/gas additive than oil pumped out of the ground half way around the world and refined in facilities under heavy restrictions
environmentally?
The problem has been in existence since the 60's. Bandid aide solutions have been used to address a life threatening wound. This is only the beginning of the worst to come.
August 17, 2005 8:37 PMOnce again, the special interests have effectively cornered the federal government and the average working American has been shunned in favor of the rich and powerful.
I cannot understand why the people who run this country cannot understand that the true strength of America resides in its workers. Isn't it time that the working people of this society are included in the properity that they have created?
You want to know what really scares me about dubbya's lack of vision for anything beyond the next photo op or political opportunity is the rapid emergence of China and India as wealthy world powers competing for the world's finite resources such as gas and oil. As manufacturing and other jobs move overseas, and as their workers have more disposable income, guess what they are going to buy? If you guessed AUTOMOBILES, you win the stuffed teddy bear! There are currently some 200 million workers in these two countries within a stones throw of being able to afford their first automobile. If we are now refining crude oil for gasoline at a rate nearly equal to demand, take another guess at what will happen with millions of additional vehicles on the world's roads? It's pretty simple arithmetic, actually. Demand exceeding supply equals high prices and a shortage of supplies. It is absolutely imperative and a matter of survival that the world's governments support and fund the research for affordable alternative energy sources instead of supporting and subsidizing BIG OIL! Where the heck are our priorities? What could dubbya and Big Dick Cheney be thinking? Is it really possible that our leaders are not real leaders at all but self-serving, greedy little pols? I think yes. And this really scares me. Why doesn't this scare anybody else?
August 18, 2005 3:06 PMIt scares me enough, to have started to use B100 all summer long. We have enough surplus farm capacity to make a dent, especially when we take some stover for ethanol into account. Cornell's paper on the poor energy balance of bio-fuels has been disputed many times over, since it's first release years ago.
Why can't we have a manufacturing renaissance in this country to put us firmly at the forefront of energy independance?! Solar (PV) panels should be on every office building or parking lot across the South - most of us commute reasonably short distances that an electric car could handle. Plug into the PV panels while at work during the day & get enough charge to commute home.
A real leader working in the bully pulpit would have us all working toward efficiency, conservation, off-grid, alternate fuels, using the engineering & manufacturing abilities that still exist in the USA. As long as the robber barons are still amking big bucks off petroleum, sadly this isn't going to happen from the top. It's time for the grassroots to start growing!
