Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6906|132 and Bush

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080923/ap_ … e_drilling
https://i33.tinypic.com/25sy9ef.jpg
Democrats will not fight to keep the moratorium on off-shore drilling in their efforts to put together a continuing resolution to keep government funded into next year.  Congressional leadership has conceded the issue to Republicans, who have staged protests and raised the profile of energy policy over the last six weeks.  Starting on October 1, states will have no federal restrictions on oil production:

Democrats have decided to allow a quarter-century ban on drilling for oil off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to expire next week, conceding defeat in an months-long battle with the White House and Republicans set off by $4 a gallon gasoline prices this summer.

    Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., told reporters Tuesday that a provision continuing the moratorium will be dropped this year from a stopgap spending bill to keep the government running after Congress recesses for the election.

    Republicans have made lifting the ban a key campaign issue after gasoline prices spiked this summer and public opinion turned in favor of more drilling. President Bush lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling in July.

    “If true, this capitulation by Democrats following months of Republican pressure is a big victory for Americans struggling with record gasoline prices,” said House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio.
This effectively ends this as an issue for the 110th Congress.  Democrats thought they could get a partial moratorium past the Republicans, one that would have kept drilling at least 50 miles off from shore, but President Bush threatened a veto on any continuing resolution with that kind of language.  The Senate had attempted to fashion the exact same compromise, but in the end, Republicans refused to agree.

Will this mean drilling can commence?  Not quite.  The states have to lease the lands as well as the federal government, and states won’t likely do so without revenue sharing.  Democrats tried blocking that in the Senate compromise, but that provided another point of failure for any compromise.  Congress has to approve that action, and right now it still appears that Democrats want to use that to limit production.

The CR will likely come up for a vote tomorrow, and it’s not just missing the drilling moratorium.  Congress has stripped out some popular programs with Democrats to ensure passage and agreement with the White House, including higher unemployment benefits and food stamps.  It still retains five billion dollars in federal heating subsidies for the poor, but most of the rest of the spending priorities of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have disappeared along with the moratorium.

This puts quite the capper on the 110th.  Not only did Democrats fail to achieve their broad policy goals, they failed on almost every specific goal they set in 2006.  They failed to stop funding the Iraq war, they failed to impeach George Bush, and they surrendered on energy policy.  Their only policy goal achieved — an increase in the minimum wage — came in a war-funding bill.

This battle may have been won, but the larger war for a rational energy policy continues.  Congress has to pass a revenue-sharing bill with the states in order to get investment started in American production — a process that will create American jobs and keep our wealth in the US rather than overseas.  With the meltdown in the financial markets still looming, this could not come at a better time.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6751|The Land of Scott Walker
Excellent
MGS3_GrayFox
Member
+50|6473
Gas will drop a few cents for a few weeks, then it will go back up.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6458|what

Kmarion wrote:

Not only did Democrats fail to achieve their broad policy goals, they failed on almost every specific goal they set in 2006.  They failed to stop funding the Iraq war, they failed to impeach George Bush, and they surrendered on energy policy.  Their only policy goal achieved — an increase in the minimum wage — came in a war-funding bill.
They never wanted to stop funding the Iraq war. If you believe that you are truly delusional. They wanted to attach to any war funding bill a clause outlining that there would be troop removal in the foreseeable future. They never wanted to cut funding specifically. Support the troops not the war became the policy, and you know it.

And the fact that they have had to concede with the offshore drilling unfortunately shows just how desperate the American govt. is for an increase in revenue stream to fight off the impending recession and try to solve the nations dependency on oil.

You shouldn't be happy about this. The offshore drilling ban was there for a reason.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7067

TheAussieReaper wrote:

try to solve the nations dependency on oil.

You shouldn't be happy about this. The offshore drilling ban was there for a reason.
so why dont the green weenies bitch at the ME for drilling all over the place?  or Russia?
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7067

TheAussieReaper wrote:

And the fact that they have had to concede with the offshore drilling unfortunately shows just how desperate the American govt. is for an increase in revenue stream to fight off the impending recession
do you have any idea how long people have been asking for it?  i think you are WAY off base tossing that out there.
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6751|The Land of Scott Walker

TheAussieReaper wrote:

You shouldn't be happy about this. The offshore drilling ban was there for a reason.
To satisfy the envirowackos and let other countries snatch up the oil we should be pulling in.
SgtHeihn
Should have ducked
+394|6793|Ham Lake, MN (Fucking Cold)

usmarine wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

try to solve the nations dependency on oil.

You shouldn't be happy about this. The offshore drilling ban was there for a reason.
so why dont the green weenies bitch at the ME for drilling all over the place?  or Russia?
Because if they ever tried to protest in those counties like they do here they would be shot.
Ajax_the_Great1
Dropped on request
+206|6952
This is going to discourage alternative energy research.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6458|what

usmarine wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

try to solve the nations dependency on oil.

You shouldn't be happy about this. The offshore drilling ban was there for a reason.
so why dont the green weenies bitch at the ME for drilling all over the place?  or Russia?
Because if you do see any green weeinies bitching about Russian govt. over there your not likely to see them a month later because they have been arrested for anti-government sentiment. And the ME doesn't exactly have an environment conductive to ecological disaster should drilling increase or decrease anyway.

usmarine wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

And the fact that they have had to concede with the offshore drilling unfortunately shows just how desperate the American govt. is for an increase in revenue stream to fight off the impending recession
do you have any idea how long people have been asking for it?  i think you are WAY off base tossing that out there.
Yeah, it's been wanted and probably needed for some time. But the reason it is needed now so badly is simply because other viable energy sources have not been utilized when they should have. You've had plenty of opportunity to invest in solar\wind\nuclear etc, but it never happened. The oil price is soaring, the gold price is soaring. Why? Because everyone is moving out of businesses and buying up precious mineral stocks and oil.

It's a double edge sword drilling this oil (which is still years off from becoming a reality). It's temporary relief from oil prices, but only potentially. There's no way to tell how the world markets will have fluctuated by the time drilling does start, because it has taken this long. What good will cutting your dependency on oil from the ME be if the rest of the world is more focused on Nuclear energy?
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
LividBovine
The Year of the Cow!
+175|6685|MN

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

This is going to discourage alternative energy research.
I hope it drives ehtanol right out the window.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
Mr.Dooomed
Find your center.
+752|6634

Stingray24 wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

You shouldn't be happy about this. The offshore drilling ban was there for a reason.
To satisfy the envirowackos and let other countries snatch up the oil we should be pulling in.
Agreed with Stingray here. I think its about time America start producing its own oil from offshore resources, AND in Alaska to be quite honest (Also in that rift region throughout Montana/South Dakota they talked about) We need the boost in jobs, income and lest I say, moral as well.
Nature is a powerful force. Those who seek to subdue nature, never do so permanently.
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6886|the dank(super) side of Oregon
finally, energy independence.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6906|132 and Bush

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Not only did Democrats fail to achieve their broad policy goals, they failed on almost every specific goal they set in 2006.  They failed to stop funding the Iraq war, they failed to impeach George Bush, and they surrendered on energy policy.  Their only policy goal achieved — an increase in the minimum wage — came in a war-funding bill.
They never wanted to stop funding the Iraq war. If you believe that you are truly delusional. They wanted to attach to any war funding bill a clause outlining that there would be troop removal in the foreseeable future. They never wanted to cut funding specifically. Support the troops not the war became the policy, and you know it.

And the fact that they have had to concede with the offshore drilling unfortunately shows just how desperate the American govt. is for an increase in revenue stream to fight off the impending recession and try to solve the nations dependency on oil.

You shouldn't be happy about this. The offshore drilling ban was there for a reason.
Way to miss the larger point hot shot. They accomplished neither. To think otherwise would be.. well delusional.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
13rin
Member
+977|6785
Weak attempt to swing votes.  They lost.  They were wrong.  However they were willing to fight the general consensus (up until now?) and try to screw the citizen.  9% eh?
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6906|132 and Bush

usmarine wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

try to solve the nations dependency on oil.

You shouldn't be happy about this. The offshore drilling ban was there for a reason.
so why dont the green weenies bitch at the ME for drilling all over the place?  or Russia?
Dude. Let's call a spade a spade.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6458|what

Kmarion wrote:

usmarine wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

try to solve the nations dependency on oil.

You shouldn't be happy about this. The offshore drilling ban was there for a reason.
so why dont the green weenies bitch at the ME for drilling all over the place?  or Russia?
Dude. Let's call a spade a spade.
I guess that just leaves you and China left to ratify the Kyoto protocol than, doesn't it?

Trying pulling an article from this year, after our new Govt. was elected and finally took steps to reduce our carbon footprint.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6980|Canberra, AUS
Yeah, not too great a stat that one.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6980|Canberra, AUS

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

usmarine wrote:


so why dont the green weenies bitch at the ME for drilling all over the place?  or Russia?
Dude. Let's call a spade a spade.
I guess that just leaves you and China left to ratify the Kyoto protocol than, doesn't it?

Trying pulling an article from this year, after our new Govt. was elected and finally took steps to reduce our carbon footprint.
To be honest, we won't see substantial cuts til 2012 when ETS will pick up some steam (if it is set up in 2010 that is)

In this year it's probably gone backwards a bit due to the insane solar rebate changes.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6906|132 and Bush

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

usmarine wrote:

so why dont the green weenies bitch at the ME for drilling all over the place?  or Russia?
Dude. Let's call a spade a spade.
I guess that just leaves you and China left to ratify the Kyoto protocol than, doesn't it?

Trying pulling an article from this year, after our new Govt. was elected and finally took steps to reduce our carbon footprint.
You think Kyoto will fix the worlds co2 problem? Have you seen the Chinese side of it? Delusional.

Kyoto is a joke.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger … 26,00.html
German Finance Minister Michael Glos wants the European Union to allow Germany to emit more greenhouse gases in exchange for decommissioning its nuclear power plants.

    Glos, a member of the conservative Christian Social Union, outlined his argument in a letter to Germany Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel, who belongs to the center-left Social Democratic Party. In the letter, which was obtained by the German business daily Handelsblatt, Glos urges Gabriel to press the issue before the European Commission. ….

    Germany’s nuclear energy program is the world’s largest, and four of the world’s five top-producing nuclear plants are located in the country. The 17 active plants in Germany are slated to be offline by 2020, but some energy industry leaders are lobbying to change that timetable. They argue that renewable energy technology won’t be advanced enough in 12 years’ time to compensate for the loss in nuclear production.

    The Handelsblatt reports that replacing energy generated by nuclear plants with power from dirtier sources, like the coal-fired plants that produce 80 percent of power in Germany, could raise emissions by 150 million tons of carbon dioxide a year.
Let me get this straight. Germany wants the US locked into the strict Kyoto controls as a means to depress our energy production. Now they admit that even twelve years from now, there won’t be any mass-production energy source that can replace even 20% of the current production they have now. Instead of recognizing the futility of Kyoto, Germany wants to pump out more pollutants instead. I thought the idea was to move away from hydrocarbon-based energy production, not increasing it.

By the way, the Dems voted 95-0 to reject Kyoto.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/r … vote=00205

Bill Clinton never bothered to try for ratification.  The “according” sat on his desk from 1998 to the end of his term.  The Bush administration merely reflected the unanimous will of the Senate when he rejected the treaty, not because he didn’t support emission control, but because he wanted an end to the exemption for India, China, and other developing nations.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6458|what

Kmarion wrote:

You think Kyoto will fix the worlds co2 problem? Have you seen the Chinese side of it? Delusional.
There is no golden bullet. The Kyoto protocol has always been held up as a moral "hands up" , "this country is willing to help" standard rally to signal a countries intent to fight co2 emisions. It's up to the signatories to then follow through with carbon reduction schemes as they see fit. 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/kyotobrf.html

The Kyoto Protocol, negotiated by more than 160 nations in December 1997, aims to reduce net emissions of certain greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide (CO2)). Each of the participating developed countries must decide how to meet its respective reduction goal during a five-year period (2008-2012)

Kmarion wrote:

Germany wants the US locked into the strict Kyoto controls as a means to depress our energy production.
As stated above, the Kyoto protocol does not force or lock you into anything. Strict controls? It's a set of reasonable reduction targets that the US had it signed, would be able to work out themselves. And there's no punishment if that target isn't met, by the way...


Kmarion wrote:

The Bush administration merely reflected the unanimous will of the Senate when he rejected the treaty, not because he didn’t support emission control, but because he wanted an end to the exemption for India, China, and other developing nations.
So your saying he did support emission control? No he didn't. If he did, you you've seen Kyoto signed by the US, followed by pressure on China and India to do the same as they would have been the only two major polluters IN THE WORLD to have not signed it. Australia lagged behind holding the US as an example of why we shouldn't sign, even though we were already set to meet the targets set by Kyoto.

I guess you've sure showed them whose boss. Not signing so that they are pressured into it themselves...

The next set of climate change talks are scheduled to conclude at a meeting in Copenhagen in late 2009. Nations will then be asked to ratify the a second and updated Kyoto treaty in time for it to enter into force when the current Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. You know, so that any reasonable changes in targets can be set by the 160+ countries that have signed.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6906|132 and Bush

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

You think Kyoto will fix the worlds co2 problem? Have you seen the Chinese side of it? Delusional.
There is no golden bullet. The Kyoto protocol has always been held up as a moral "hands up" , "this country is willing to help" standard rally to signal a countries intent to fight co2 emisions. It's up to the signatories to then follow through with carbon reduction schemes as they see fit.
The US did sign Kyoto. What they haven't done is ratify it. I guess you could say we are following through with it as we see fit .

TheAussieReaper wrote:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/kyotobrf.html

The Kyoto Protocol, negotiated by more than 160 nations in December 1997, aims to reduce net emissions of certain greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide (CO2)). Each of the participating developed countries must decide how to meet its respective reduction goal during a five-year period (2008-2012)
The United States has numerous programs in place (or getting into place). Refusing to dance in your pretentious moral charade while holding hands and singing Kumbaya is .. delusional.

TheAussieReaper wrote:

As stated above, the Kyoto protocol does not force or lock you into anything. Strict controls? It's a set of reasonable reduction targets that the US had it signed, would be able to work out themselves. And there's no punishment if that target isn't met, by the way...
Thank for reiterating the uselessness of an inept "moral agreement". That sounds right on par with the UN.

TheAussieReaper wrote:

So your saying he did support emission control? No he didn't. If he did, you you've seen Kyoto signed by the US, followed by pressure on China and India to do the same as they would have been the only two major polluters IN THE WORLD to have not signed it. Australia lagged behind holding the US as an example of why we shouldn't sign, even though we were already set to meet the targets set by Kyoto.

I guess you've sure showed them whose boss. Not signing so that they are pressured into it themselves...

The next set of climate change talks are scheduled to conclude at a meeting in Copenhagen in late 2009. Nations will then be asked to ratify the a second and updated Kyoto treaty in time for it to enter into force when the current Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. You know, so that any reasonable changes in targets can be set by the 160+ countries that have signed.
Yes he did. If you had done just the slightest bit of research you would have found the Clean Air Act.
In the United States, the Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1963, the Air Quality Act in 1967, the Clean Air Act Extension of 1970, and Clean Air Act Amendments in 1977 and 1990. Numerous state and local governments have enacted similar legislation, either implementing federal programs or filling in locally important gaps in federal programs.

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 proposed emissions trading, added provisions for addressing acid rain, ozone depletion and toxic air pollution, and established a national permits program. The amendments once approved also established new auto gasoline reformulation requirements, set Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) standards to control evaporative emissions from gasoline and mandated that the new gasoline formulations be sold from May-September in many states.
In May 2007, President Bush issued an executive order to cut greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, spurred by a Supreme Court ruling that the EPA must take action under the Clean Air Act to regulate GHG emissions from motor vehicles. The President proposed the 20-in-10 bill, a goal to reduce gasoline consumption by 20 percent over the next ten years.
Or even Clear Skies Act:
* Cut SO2 emissions by 73%, from emissions of 11 million tons to a cap of 4.5 million tons in 2010, and 3 million tons in 2018.
    * Cut NOx emissions by 67%, from emissions of 5 million tons to a cap of 2.1 million tons in 2008, and to 1.7 million tons in 2018.
    * Cut mercury emissions by 69%, from emissions of 48 tons to a cap of 26 tons in 2010, and 15 tons in 2018.
    * Actual emissions caps would be set to account for different air quality needs in the East and West.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|6752|Chicago, IL
fossil fuels...

where are the fast breeder thorium reactors the french have essentially perfected?
djphetal
Go Ducks.
+346|6641|Oregon

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

This is going to discourage alternative energy research.
This is my greatest fear too... the primary reason I opposed offshore drilling. Environmentally, it's not that bad... and it certainly would help our economy... but only in the short term. If this does discourage alternate-energy research, then it's truly tragic.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6906|132 and Bush

Not at all. It's a necessary part of the equation for developing green technology. Honestly foreigners should be ecstatic. If the US starts using it's own vast natural resources it's more likely that a non interventionist policy would take root. Maybe we can actually reverse the position put forth in the Carter Doctrine.
Xbone Stormsurgezz

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard