Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (193045)	1/15/2007 5:18:36 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793838

The goal is to waste the new revenues on renewable energy and energy efficiency scams that line the pockets of friends of Pelosi.

To: KLP who wrote (193045)	1/15/2007 6:05:10 PM
From: miraje	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793838

The article you link (and I pasted below) is indeed depressing. That's just the beginning. These politicians seem hell bent on destroying our economy (including John McCain, who would be the WORST possible GOP nominee in '08, IMO, and will NEVER get my vote). Once again, actions have consequences. China will grow and prosper while we get throttled by our pols... environment.about.com Congressional Interest in Global Warming Heats Up as 2007 Begins From Larry West, Your Guide to Environmental Issues. FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now! Proposed Legislation Seeks Mandatory Cuts on Greenhouse Gas Emissions On January 12, 2007, six U.S. senators introduced bipartisan legislation calling for mandatory limits on greenhouse gases that would reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases to one-third of 2000 levels by 2050—the latest in a series of legislative efforts to bring U.S. emissions under control. The Long Road to Congressional Action to Curb Global Warming Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a potential presidential contender in 2008, and Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut Independent, have been pushing for climate change legislation since 2003. None of their previous attempts could gain traction in the Republican-controlled Congress, however, and the White House never supported the legislation. The new bill is a modified version of the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act, first introduced in 2003. (more like the "Kill the US Economy Act") Since first taking office in 2001, President Bush has consistently opposed mandatory caps for greenhouse gases, claiming such measures would seriously undermine the U.S. economy. Those economic concerns is the primary reason Bush gave for refusing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which places mandatory limits on carbon dioxide emissions. (this idiot doesn't realize that congress, not the president, ratifies treaties and that the Senate rejected Kyoto 97-0 during Clintons term in the '90's). Now that Democrats control both houses of Congress, McCain, Lieberman and the four original cosponsors of the bill—including Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), another potential 2008 presidential contender—expect strong support for the measure. "Given our will and what's at stake, America can and must assume its proper leadership role in addressing the preeminent environmental issue of our time," McCain said in a statement. Mandatory Caps on Six Greenhouse Gases The bill outlines a “cap-and-trade” plan, which would place mandatory caps on six kinds of greenhouse gases but give companies and utilities a choice of how to comply. They could either reduce their emissions directly or purchase and trade credits to help offset their greenhouse gas emissions. The plan would apply to greenhouse gas emissions from four business sectors: electric utilities, transportation, general industry and commercial. Under the new Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from the four regulated business sectors would be cut back to 2.096 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2050, compared to 6.130 billion metric tons in 2000.(get out your horse and buggy, oh, I forgot, horses fart methane, too) New Congressional Focus on Global Warming and the Environment The switch from Republican to Democrat leadership in Congress has increased the focus on environmental issues and opened the door to potential legislative action to curb global warming, including: * Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), new chair of the Senate Energy Committee, has a bill that would lower U.S. carbon emissions 5 percent by 2015 and 14 percent by 2030. * Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), new chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, has called for a hearing on climate change and global warming, to be held January 30, 2007. * Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), new chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, also has called for hearings on climate change. Dingell has invited former Vice President Al Gore to testify. An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s documentary film on global warming, has become a box-office sensation and helped to establish Gore as a leading spokesman on the issue of global warming.(we're sure in good hands with geniuses like these clowns running the show)

To: KLP who wrote (193045)	1/15/2007 7:02:10 PM
From: Ichy Smith	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793838

House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., on Thursday introduced the energy bill to deny large energy firms billions of dollars worth of tax and production incentives. So the US is already short on refining capacity. And they are going to deny production incentives, so they are denying them money they pay them to produce, the answer to which is of course not to increase production. So they won't look for nearby oil, won't produce in the US, and will import oil for the US to use. Companies that fail to renegotiate their leases so that they are required to make royalty payments during times of high energy prices would suffer penalties. The fee would amount to at least $9 per barrel for oil produced under the flawed leases and $1.25 per million Btu for natural gas So when the rest of the world is paying $60.00 a barrel for oil, the US will add 9 bucks to the price and Americans will be paying a basic 72 bucks a barrel as the extra plus bookkeeping and profit for oil are added. I hope they get that one through quick. The oil companies will charge the extra on every barrel of oil even when the price goes down..... If they can get this going before next winter, can they win in 2008 November? It seems to me that there will be a huge jump in the price of oil.

To: KLP who wrote (193045)	1/16/2007 12:55:43 PM
From: miraje	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793838

That's why we have to endure these furballs. You're being much too kind in your characterization of these mental midgets... The OPEC Energy Security Act The Wall Street Journal via Dow Jones House Democrats have finally released the details of their "Energy Security Bill," which will be voted on this week, and they must be cursing their rotten luck. Just when they want to stick it to Big Oil for alleged price gouging, oil and home heating costs are plunging. Never mind; this was a campaign theme amid $3 gasoline, and a detail like $2 gas isn't about to stop Democrats now. This bill is said to promote America's energy independence, but the biggest winner may be OPEC. This is a lengthy, complicated bill, but the central idea is simple: Raise taxes on domestic oil producers and then spend the money to subsidize ethanol, solar energy, windmills (so long as they're not on Cape Cod), and so on. But if you increase the cost of domestic oil production by $10 billion, you are ensuring that U.S. imports of OPEC oil will rise and domestic production will fall. The bill also includes a "Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve" fund for alternative fuels. That sounds a lot like the Carter-era Synthetic Fuels Corporation -- one of the more notorious Washington boondoggles of all time, having spent $2.1 billion of tax dollars on alternative fuels before declaring bankruptcy. Today there is no under-investment by the private sector in alternative energy. The research firm New Energy Finance has found that between ; 2004 and 2006 investment in alternative energy doubled to $63 billion. Venture capital funding of green-energy technologies has quadrupled since 1998. The Democrats also insist that the big five oil companies have received sweetheart deals from the government that have ripped off taxpayers. So let's take a closer look. The most controversial issue involves $6 billion in royalty payments that oil companies are said to owe the government for oil pumped from federal waters. The facts suggest otherwise. These were leases for drilling rights in the Gulf of Mexico signed between oil companies and the Clinton Administration's Interior Department in 1998-99. At that time the world oil price had fallen to as low as $10 a barrel and the contracts were signed without a requirement of royalty payments if the price of oil rose above $35 a barrel. Interior's Inspector General investigated and found that this standard royalty clause was omitted not because of any conspiracy by big oil, but rather because of bureaucratic bungling in the Clinton Administration. The same report found that a year after these contracts were signed Chevron and other oil companies alerted Interior to the absence of royalty fees, and that Interior replied that the contracts should go forward nonetheless. The companies have since invested billions of dollars in the Gulf on the basis of those lease agreements, and only when the price of oil surged to $70 a barrel did anyone start expressing outrage that Big Oil was "cheating" taxpayers out of royalties. Some oil companies have voluntarily offered to renegotiate these contracts. The Democrats are now demanding that all these firms do so -- even though the government signed binding contracts. The Democratic bill strong-arms oil companies into renegotiating the contracts or pay a $9 per barrel royalty fee from these leases. If the companies refuse, they lose their rights to bid for any future leases on federal property. So at the same time that the U.S. is trying to persuade Venezuela and other nations to honor property rights, Congress does its own Hugo Chavez imitation. Are American taxpayers worse off because of these leasing agreements? Hardly. It's fortunate these contracts were issued when oil prices were so low, because the oil discovered from those leases will do precisely what the Democratic energy bill will not: reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. One of the largest oil deposits in the Gulf was recently discovered as a result of these leases. Democrats also want to raise about $5 to $6 billion by snatching away alleged tax breaks for Big Oil in the Republicans' 2005 energy bill. Sorry, that isn't true either. The Congressional Research Service reports that the net impact of the 2005 energy bill was to raise taxes on the oil and gas industry by $300 million. Nor does it make sense to repeal a domestic oil company's eligibility for a 2004 tax cut that reduced the effective corporate income tax rate to 32% from 35% on U.S. manufacturers. This tax cut increases the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers that are now penalized by a U.S. corporate tax rate that is among the highest in the industrialized world. Our objection is that every U.S. company should pay the same, lower rate. The House energy bill is nearly a carbon copy (if we can still use the word "carbon" in polite company) of California's Proposition 87. That 2006 ballot initiative would have taxed California's home-produced oil in order to subsidize "green technology" alternatives. California is a fairly liberal state, but even those voters understood that Prop 87 would have damaged the state's home oil and gas industry, increased foreign oil consumption, and raised the energy bills of state residents. It was clobbered at the polls. The House will plow ahead anyway, but let's hope the Senate has more wisdom. (END) Copyright (c) 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. Message 23188821