An energy bill that would require automakers to raise average fuel economy standards hit a roadblock Friday in the Senate, but senators vowed to work over the weekend to find a way to advance the legislation.
A procedural vote on the bill failed 53-42, seven votes short of the 60 needed for the bill to advance. Republicans objected to $21 billion in new taxes contained in the bill.
Where's the problem here people? Is it really that hard to get a consensus on this issue here? We're at the mercy of oil producing nations, and yet, if some simple fuel efficient things were done, we could get rid of our oil dependency in nothing flat.
Plus, we'd be screwing OPEC countries in the process. :)
Let's imagine for a moment that all cars are required to get 45mpg and all trucks are required to get 35mpg.
That immediately removes our oil dependency. With the worlds largest consumer of oil no longer needing OPEC's oil, the market price drops to the floor.
OPEC countries panic and cut production, trying to increase the price. Countries like China and European countries take measures against such a price hike.
This has a spiraling effect on things. The environment becomes better as we are burning fewer gallons of gas, OPEC gets screwed, thus taking out the funds that eventually get into the hands of terrorist groups, and folks like Ahmadinejad now have an angry populace on it's hands because it can no longer subsidize gas prices.
It's win-win-win all around.
Honda built the worlds first mass production hybrid with it's Insight. I bought one and got an average of 55mpg with spikes as high as 110mpg. When I was involved in an accident with it, it performed as well as I could expect any other car to perform.
That's just proper engineering and high grade materials at work there.
The auto industry and many Republicans support the bill's new CAFE standards, but the taxes contained in the bill complicate its prospects for passage in the Senate. The bill would repeal billions of tax subsidies, including $13 billion for the nation's five largest oil companies.
The bill also includes a mandate that electric utility companies generate 15 percent of their energy from renewable sources such as wind, biomass or solar power by 2020.
The White House has threatened to veto the bill. The president's chief economic adviser, Allan Hubbard, wrote to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, this week, citing the renewable electricity mandate and taxes as unacceptable.
Now correct me if I run astray (I know I'll get hate mail regardless), but I fail to see why oil companies need subsidies at all? With them having record revenues, why should they get tax breaks at all? I could understand if they were employing say 30,000 people and certain states were fighting over those jobs, but why is the federal government giving tax breaks to these people?
The renewable energy notion I would like to see more study on. 15% doesn't sound like much, but you're talking about powering a nation that's filled to the brim with electronic needs.
Throw a solar furnace in Arizona, a wave generator off the coast of Oregon, a wind mill farm in the Columbia River Gorge (which they already have some in there) in between Oregon and Washington state.
Energy independence isn't a political catch phrase that people use. It's a very real idea that is easily within our reach. So why not reach for it, screw OPEC countries that have been overcharging us for years, and more?
You can't conduct terrorist operations and get explosives if you don't have any money to do so.
Travis
No comments:
Post a Comment