TW: Boehner took a shot at an energy policy on Stephanopoulo's show and missed, here Newt Gingrich takes a swing in a Newsweek article. I will parse it as well:
From Gingrich in Newsweek:
"For the past 30 years, America has grown increasingly dependent upon foreign sources of energy, sending American dollars to countries that are hostile to American interests and leaving us vulnerable to wild fluctuations in energy prices.
Let's be clear: our energy crisis is not due to a lack of American energy resources. We have more coal than any other country in the world. There are 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas lying undeveloped offshore. Shale-oil reservoirs in parts of Colorado and Utah could hold upwards of 1 trillion barrels of oil—more than three times the proven reserves in Saudi Arabia. Nuclear power is a clean source of energy that produces zero carbon emissions. It generates 20 percent of America's electric power today, and with the right investment could generate far more.
TW: Newt's estimates are on the high side of even estimates I have ever seen. Regardless it is not like the oil is just lying there just below the surface waiting for limp-wristed Dems to let the Repubs tap some wells. The oil and gas is either mostly in deep water or in shale both of which would require oil somewhere north of $80/bbl to become economically recoverable (and that ignores the not inconsiderable environmental impacts). As for coal we have lots of it, I suggest you send in your applications to construct a coal fired plant near you. And nukes, he forgets the usual omissions, yes it does not emit carbon but the plants do create waste that no one wants and again no one wants those plants in their backyards either.
...And now, in 2009, instead of making energy cheaper—which would help create jobs and save Americans money—President Obama wants to impose a cap-and-trade regime. Such a plan would have the effect of an across-the-board energy tax on every American. That will make our artificial energy crisis even worse—and raising taxes during a deep economic recession will only accelerate American job losses.
The Obama administration's own budget director is on record predicting an increase of about $1,300 in the price of energy for the average American from this type of energy tax. "
TW: Okay so Newt does not like carbon related taxes, fine BUT then he must inherently believes climate change is a chimera and that little or no negative externalities exist related to fossil fuels (e.g. pollution, sending troops to secure oil, sending US$ to support the Putins, Chavez etc. of the world). Please refer back to the initial paragraph above from Newt. He actually does believe there are negative externalities but his solution is for us to pump harder domestically. It starts to get circular unless you actually believe that the U.S. can suddenly become oil self sufficient despite not having been able to do so for fifty years.
"What America needs is a rational energy policy that utilizes all our homegrown energy resources while protecting the environment. For instance, in addition to opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve and the shale-oil deposits in Colorado and Utah for drilling, we should change our federal law to give all states with offshore oil and gas the same share of federal royalties that other states get for land-based resources. Revenue generated from these royalties could help many cash-strapped states address their budget problems, in addition to funding alternative- and renewable-energy research. In addition, we should allow companies to write off 100 percent of their expenses in the first year if their refineries considerably expand America's oil-refining capacity.
TW: Perhaps my favorite paragraph. Newt wants to "protect the environment" but then proceeds to take every action possible to pressure the environment- open ANWR, scrape shale out of the western states, while providing some good old tax credits (can NEVER have too many of those for oil and gas producers).
The federal government should also develop a package of incentives to encourage clean-energy innovation. This should include a series of tax-free prizes to accelerate innovation in developing clean-coal technologies, as well as a $1 billion tax-free prize for the first hydrogen car that can be mass-produced at a reasonable price. We should make the wind- and solar-power tax credits permanent to provide long-term stability to these growing industries and develop long-distance transmission lines to move the massive amounts of wind power in the Great Plains to urban areas. We should also pass an open-fuel standard for 95 percent of the new cars sold in the United States, allowing the construction of flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs) that can run on a variety of fuels, including ethanol. Finally, America should implement a loser-pays rule for lawsuits against any energy company. This would guarantee that any lawsuit brought against an energy developer was not done solely to slow down the process through the courts.
TW: A billion smacker for the first person to develop a hydrogen car, don't you think if somebody figures out a hydrogen car the last freakin' thing they would care about is a billion smackers from Newt. Billions have been spent chasing that goal and billions more will regardless of any "prize". This is mere BS to sound "green". The loser pays rule is nice, it would put the kibosh on any future lawsuits against those little multi-national oil companies who might just litigate any future plaintiff to death knowing that if they should happen to lose the plaintiff out millions in legal costs. The day you want all plaintiff activity (which is to say all legal activity) ended is the day you should support loser pay rules.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/192480
No comments:
Post a Comment