The House Dems have just passed a bill that will do nothing but raise the cost of energy for consumers. How else can you say it? They refused to allow the increase in domestic oil, gas and coal production. They refused to make construction of refineries and nuclear power plants affordable (and possible).
How can anyone in this world believe that MAKING energy companies spend billions on unproven "alternative" energy sources will save consumer's money?
Declaring a new direction in energy policy, the U.S. House of Representatives approved $16 billion in taxes on oil companies, while providing billions of dollars in tax breaks and incentives for renewable energy and conservation efforts.Here's the thing. Requiring biofuels and alternative sources of energy is fine for energy companies that are located in areas that can produce these alternates, but for other companies, they will have to BUY these alternative energies. This of course, raises rates on consumers. As it is, even with subsidies, the cost to consumers for alternative energies is more expensive than so-called traditional sources. Many companies give consumers the choice of energy sources. But they also highlight the fact that they consumers will pay a premium for "saving the earth".
The House passed the tax provisions by a vote of 221-189 Saturday. Earlier it had approved, 241-172, a companion energy package aimed at boosting energy efficiency and expanding use of biofuels, wind power and other renewable energy sources.
On one of the most contentious and heavily lobbied issues, the House voted to require investor-owned electric utilities nationwide to generate at least 15 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources such as wind or biofuels.Repeat after me. THERE IS NO MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING!!!! Good Gawd!!
The utilities and business interests had argued aggressively against the federal renewables mandate, saying it would raise electricity prices in regions of the country that do not have abundant wind energy. But environmentalists said the requirement will spur investments in renewable fuels and help address global warming as utilities use less coal.
Ok, do you want to see how screwed up these people are?? Read on...
"This will save consumers money," said Democratic congressman Tom Udall, the provision's co-sponsor, maintaining utilities will have to use less high-priced natural gas.Yep, you read that right. This bill will save you money by forcing these companies to buy LESS natural gas to power their natural gas fired electric plants. This bozo says that natural gas is high priced. It is the cheapest thing around right now. And, the reason these companies are using natural gas is because they were forced to move away from coal years ago by the eco-nuts who are now forcing them to move away from this clean energy.
Are they really expecting us to believe that creating energy through ethanol, wind, and solar is less costly than natural gas??? These people are idiots. At least they can count on an illiterate and ignorant society.
1) Forcing conversions to a more delicate and expensive energy producing scheme does not save consumers money.
2) Forcing companies to purchase this more expansive alternate energy will not save consumers money.
3) Insisting that companies force their consumers to buy alternate energy sources will not save consumers money.
4) Using ethanol and biomass fuels (what is that anyway???) will actually increase the use of petroleum products, increase the use of non-preferred lands for corn production, increase fertilizer usage, and mandate the expensive conversion of traditional storage and transport facilities to handle ethanol.
The bill also calls for more stringent energy efficiency standards for appliances and lighting and incentives for building more energy-efficient "green" buildings. It would authorize special bonds for cities and counties to reduce energy demand.What an idiot. They remove the tax breaks from oil and energy companies and give them to people to build green buildings and use alternative energy sources. What does that really mean? It means, it is not economically feasible to switch to "green" energies and to build "green" buildings. It costs more to do these things and people don't really want these products since they do cost more. So, the government of socialists are going to FORCE you to go "green" because these socialists know what is best for you.
Pelosi, a Democrat, said it was essential to commit to renewable energy while reducing reliance on fossil fuels. Doing so, she said, will help address global warming and make the country more energy-independent. "It's about our children, about our future, the world in which they live," Pelosi said.
And, how do you commit to renewable while also reducing reliance on fossil fuels? For one, there are more and more cars on the road each and every month. Two, there are more and more houses being constructed each month. There are more and more energy using products than ever before each and every month. This will only increase the need for quick and efficient energy sources.
Solar is still very inefficient. Ethanol is highly inefficient when compared to oil and coal. We have hydroelectric power, but now the Nazis are forcing their closures due to the harm to fish and the natural environment in the way it looks. Besides, using hydroelectric is not cheaper than traditional means for some reason. The power is free and the dams have long been paid for, but yet, their rates are still very high. And now that the federal government and eco-Nazis are forcing dams to reduce their operations when fish are migrating, the costs will only increase.
And how in the world does this make the country energy independent when there is no actual decrease in the need for foreign energy supplies? This bill does absolutely nothing to increase domestic fuel supplies.
Republican opponents said the legislation ignored the need to produce more domestic oil, natural gas and coal. One Republican lawmaker bemoaned "the pure venom ... against the oil and gas industry."
Republicans said the House bill did nothing to increase domestic oil and natural gas production or take further advantage of coal, the country's most abundant domestic energy resource.
"There's a war going on against energy from fossil fuels," said Republican Ralph Hall, who is from the oil-rich state of Texas. "I can't understand the pure venom felt against the oil and gas industry." Rep. Joe Barton, another Texas Republican, said the bill was "a political exercise" to promote "pet projects, ... pet ideas."
The bill would repeal for oil companies a tax break given in 2004 to help domestic manufacturers compete against foreign companies, and another tax break pertaining to income from foreign oil production. The House-passed bill also includes an array of loan guarantees, federal grants and tax breaks for alternative energy programs. They include building biomass factories, research into making ethanol from wood chips and prairie grasses and producing better batteries for hybrid gas-electric automobiles.Research??? What research?!?? Why should the federal government be involved in paying for research into areas that it demands and forces private companies to go into?? If the energy is economically feasible and in the best interest of the company, then the company itself will seek out funding sources for alternative energies. The greatest advancements in America's history have been at the hands of private invention and not federally mandated boondoggles.