Fed Up With The Price At The Pump? View This

Oil is a diminishing commodity; prices are only going to increase as it gets harder and harder to extract it and it becomes more scarce. If you really want prices to come down, we need to wean ourselves off of the fossil fuels (notice I said wean, not go cold turkey, for those of you ready to jump my sh**). lol This group says all kinds of of pretty things on their website, http://kevinmccarthy.house.gov/index.ph ... s-releases but states no specific goals/plans of action at all, and completely misrepresents what energy policies Obama has tried to implement (and granted, his efforts have been half-assed at best, but to say that he's doing nothing, and implying that he's sending jobs overseas is ridiculous partisan rhetoric). And the history of the reps who sponsored this are suspect.

http://www.desmogblog.com/gop-house-ene ... dream-team
GOP House Energy Action Team Is Dirty Energy Dream Team
17 May 11

Earlier this month, House Republicans formed the House Energy Action Team, or “HEAT.” 26 GOP members of Congress joined the group, whose stated mission to is to reduce American dependence on foreign oil and reduce gasoline prices for American consumers.

On the surface, the group’s intentions seem reasonable, but a comprehensive analysis by DeSmogBlog shows that the members of HEAT are using their positions to promote the use of oil and other dirty fossil fuels, rather than promoting the development and use of clean renewable fuel sources.

ThinkProgress compiled a list of the campaign contributions each member of HEAT has received over the course of their careers (which total more than $4 million for all members combined.) It is important to note that all but one of these members voted against repealing the $4 billion in subsidies that the oil industry receives every year. The members are listed below with their career contributions from the oil and gas industry, as well as their positions and proposals on energy and environment throughout their careers:

see article for more details.

Energy independence? Comprehensive energy production? Not.
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/i ... gyplan.pdf
GOP’s Energy Plan Is Really an “Oil Above All” Plan
March 2011

But in the three months since they assumed their new majority, the GOP has taken nine votes that would either benefit Big Oil or slash funding for policies that reduce our dependence on foreign oil—all while hurting consumers (see page 5 for more information on these votes).
The GOP in Congress has voted to gut efficiency programs, research and development for energy innovation, and funding for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to crack down on oil speculators who artificially drive up the price of gas. The House-passed fiscal year 2011 continu- ing resolution, H.R. 1, would eliminate funding for energy innovation research and development. It would also cut $2.5 billion in funding for high-speed rail that would reduce oil use—all while maintaining billions of dollars in subsidies and royalty-free drilling for Big Oil. Additionally, GOP members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted to block the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, from reducing carbon dioxide pollution from vehicles, which would improve fuel economy, reduce oil use, and save consumers money.

Supporting only Big Oil investments is not an “all of the above” strategy. It’s an “oil above all” policy.

Fine, here's a cute little video for you Nmysys. Enjoy!

http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2011/0 ... -lee-camp/
[youtube:qwamlkyn][/youtube:qwamlkyn]

http://www.desmogblog.com/no-need-worry ... -predicted
No Need to Worry: Record Tornadoes, Raging Fires, Mega Floods, & Crop-Killing Droughts Are NOT What Climatologists Predicted
Bill McKibben
24 May 11
This op-ed originally appeared in the Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... new-normal
U.S. weather extremes show 'new normal' climate
Heavy rains, deep snowfalls,monster floods and killing droughts are signs of a "new normal" of extreme U.S.
May 18, 2011

Well, if you'd bothered reading my "too long" first post (or any of my posts on this topic), you'd see that I addressed the blame - and yes, it's on every administration and Congressional body that's been elected, for at least the last 35 years, on the promise of getting us off of our foreign oil dependence but hasn't. I've blasted Obama for continuing our bad energy policy, opening up coal resources for sale to China, not pushing renewables enough, etc. so you can stop with the "Typical" response.

It's about climate change because the amount of oil that we can extract here in the US won't even come close to feeding our needs; it's a pointless endeavor, it won't bring down prices (thanks to the traders), and will only exacerbate climate change and create more damaged land. It's not the way to go, and the group that made this video isn't doing anything to help the American People.

Yes, it does take time to wean ourselves off of oil, and what are the Republicans doing to make that happen? Look at their voting record. For that matter, what are the Democrats doing. Nothing. They all need to go.

I absolutely agree with the statements in paragraph 2. Paragraph 4 should be of special interest to CriticalBill and BearMtnHIB.

Moving past the climate reasons for switching to renewable energy production, it just makes sense economically and for security reasons.

http://www.grist.org/climate-policy/201 ... servatives
Climate policy for conservatives
by Stephen DeCanio
24 May 2011

Suppose you believe, as I do, in basic conservative principles (free enterprise and a market economy, limited government, and minimal change in established institutions that work well), but also acknowledge that anthropogenic climate change presents a sufficient danger that something needs to be done about it. The risk is that even as little as 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) of warming might push one of a number of different Earth systems past a tipping point that is both catastrophic and irreversible. In other words, the problem is one of risk management, in which prudence calls for taking action before it is too late to make a mid-course correction. What would be a conservative response to this threat?

It is unfortunate that the climate issue has been co-opted by liberals, because conservative policy prescriptions would not be the same as those that have been put forward by the Democrats and their allies among the environmental groups. The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill that passed the House in 2010 (then died in the Senate) was a 1,400-page monstrosity; it catered to special interests, placed undue burdens on people with low incomes, and had no connection to a coherent U.S. international negotiating strategy on climate. Just as misguided is the EPA's intention to regulate CO2 as a pollutant by executive fiat -- a scheme that also is inefficient, non-transparent, and regressive. Virtually all economists would agree that either approach is inferior to a well-designed carbon tax or auctioned emissions permits, with revenues returned to citizens on a per capita basis or used to cut other taxes.

Neither domestic cap-and-trade nor the command-and-control regulatory approach of the Democrats recognizes the 800-pound gorilla in the room: Whatever the United States does will be ineffective unless there is global action. The cornerstone of a conservative climate policy has to be to foster emissions reductions everywhere. The United States should exercise leadership because we have the world's largest economy, but we cannot solve this problem alone. What is needed is less social tinkering within the U.S., and more old-fashioned realpolitik, an approach that ought to be the hallmark of conservatism in foreign affairs. We need to recognize the interaction of the interests of other nations large and small, and fashion policies that will alter the international political and economic landscape to our benefit.

The climate action strategy being proposed here need not have an adverse effect on overall U.S. employment and economic growth. Total domestic employment in the long run is determined by numerous factors buried deep in the structure of the labor market (labor force participation rates, the availability and duration of unemployment subsidies, the degree of interregional mobility, etc.), so while carbon-free energy investments at home and abroad will require substantial allocations of capital, the effect on aggregate U.S. employment is not likely to be large. The new technologies will open up a range of new domestic jobs even as some previous jobs are lost. Climate investments will not be costless, however. Economists on both the left and the right have done a disservice in confusing jobs and consumption. The right has exacerbated fears that the transition away from carbon will cost jobs, while downplaying the jobs created by the transition; the left has touted "green jobs" as a panacea that will make action on climate painless, ignoring the opportunity cost of the green investments. The truth is that the necessary investments have a real cost and will shift jobs.

Finally, there is an additional strategic benefit to a climate policy aimed at the eventual phaseout of fossil fuels. It makes no political or military sense for the U.S., the E.U., and Japan to spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually to purchase oil and gas from non-democratic, unstable, or hostile countries. The magnitude of this wealth transfer is of the same order as the investment effort that would be required to convert the global energy system to non-fossil primary sources. How could such a redirection of funds be bad for U.S. interests?