The Democrats have announced key issues on which they will fight the mid-term elections in November. These include eliminating subsidies for oil and gas companies as well as a 25 percent reduction in oil use by 2020, largely by developing fuel alternatives in the United States. “We want to send our energy money to the Midwest, not the Middle East,” Representative Nancy Pelosi the House leader said.
The Democrats contrasted their “new direction” with that of the Republicans— which they called “the wrong direction”. So go on, tell us what your polices would be on gas prices, energy security and climate change. Not forgetting of course whether we should end subsidies for Big Oil…
Maybe there’s hope for the Democratic Party if they’re actually serious about bucking Big Oil. While “Midwest, not Mideast” makes a good slogan, I hope that they plan for a wider distribution than that.
There’s another aspect of alternative sources I’d like to see get more attention: unlike petroleum, gas, and coal, many alternative sources can be exploited by relatively small businesses located relatively close to the markets they serve. In addition to the obvious benefit of reducing the transportation overhead, this would promote the growth of local economies and more genuinely free marketplaces. I’d use a lot of the money saved from eliminating subsidies as “public venture capital” to seed and support such enterprises.
As to climate change, it’s happening already. While it’s definitely good to cut GHG emissions, we’ll also need a strong program to anticipate and respond to the crises that will most likely come: massive heat waves, droughts, floods, and the invasion of the southern US by tropical pests and diseases as the average temperature rises. (Review the heat wave and floods that have hit Europe in the last few years.)
As long as the peabrains in Congress keep accepting money from oil (like Pelosi, the Democrat), why trust anything they have to say about alternative energies? The Republicans are bad enuf, but the Dems aren’t far behind. Look at Feinstein and Boxer’s oil money!
It’s a colossal joke, and the American public is the butt of that joke.
Poor Nancy… spinning people’s heads with sloagans and poorly conceived concepts. First of all.. if you did end the oil subsidies, then you probably would reduce consumption by 25%… because far fewer people would be able to afford to drive to work. And I don’t mean the wealthy and the middle class… Ending oil subsidies, as popular as the idea sounds, will hurt the lower class the most. Secondly.. with regard to her comment about the middle east… Nancy should spend about 45 seconds googling to learn what countries actually deliver our oil. But of course… if she came out and said, “We’re going to quit sending our dollars to Canada and Mexico, she’d be angering a huge portion of her liberal base. Nancy is just spinning… sooner or later, she’ll probably fall over.
Her solution to getting it all done? Alternate fuels. Maybe Nancy, and the other democrats should present a plan for the rise of alternate fuels. Let’s hear just HOW this will be completed. Right now, tax subsidies are the ONLY thing that makes alternate fuels price-competitive with oil. End the oil subsidies and replace them with alternate fuel subsidies? What good does that do?
Enough of the stories about ivory towers… I’d like to hear about the people building that tower, and how they’re going to get it done. The same goes for Iraq. Enough of the blind criticism. What is the plan for winning? Hint: “Redeployment” is a concept – not a plan. Just like “alternate fuels” is an idea – not a plan.
HOW, Nancy? HOW are you going to get this done?? Why do we keep listening to the endless spin. Democrats, for as grand as their vision may be, honestly have no idea how to get from Here and Now, to the dream they are trying to sell us.
Comments are closed.