>I assume you would like tax credits beyond the first 60k sold? So you like this part, it's just not enough.
It's a step back from before!
>It lowers the cost of domestic exploration, which will increase domestic exploration, which will reduce the dependency on foreign oil, right? Your beef here is that if exploration & extraction cost say $25 per barrel now, and oil is $60 per barrel, they don't need their exploration/extraction cost reduced to $15. Is that it?
The oil companies don't NEED anything. They're now the most profitable industry in the whole country. I'd rather see $3 billion in tax credits to the pursuit of alternative energy. Not to mention that if you follow FL news at all, they're trying to do offshore drilling in environmentally protected areas, such as the beaches of FL. Even Jeb is against it, but the oil industry wants it badly.
>Haven't they made mandates like that previously with little success in "getting us off oil"? If it didn't work before, why would it work today?
It did work very well in the '70s! We haven't seriously pursued this option since Reagan came into office.
>This one is beyond my knowledge.
This happens over and over and over. You can buy an SUV tax-free here and they're making it easier to do so.
>It sounds to me like the major thing in the bill is #2 which is designed to reduce exploration costs for domestic oil producers. Doesn't sound so horrible to me, if I understand it correctly.
Every single item you mentioned is calibrated to deliberately set us back on one environmental front or another, to thumb politicians' noses at those who are supporting environmental causes, and to give more profit to the oil producers.
You may not get it, but there are many officeholders who believe that we should purposely destroy the environment. Does the name James Watt mean anything to you?
-Z |
