Upcoming Energy Bill

[Thanatoast]

From the NYTimes:
WASHINGTON, Tuesday, July 26 - House and Senate negotiators came to agreement on broad energy legislation early today, hoping they have put together an overhaul of national energy policy that can clear Congress after years of stalemate.

"We hope to have the bill on the House floor on Wednesday and I think the Senate is going to put it up on Thursday,'' said Representative Joe Barton, Republican of Texas and chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, as he concluded negotiations shortly before 3 a.m. Eastern time.

The measure touches on virtually every aspect of American energy production and consumption, including the electrical grid, hybrid cars, traditional oil and gas drilling, and incentives to develop new energy sources. But it does little to immediately lower the price of gasoline at the pump.

As they wound up their talks, lawmakers agreed to a significant new requirement to add corn-based ethanol to the gasoline supply, which will build support for the measure from farm state lawmakers.

Working furiously to try to strike an energy deal, the negotiators killed two major provisions aimed at curbing consumption of traditional fossil fuels like oil, natural gas and coal. They also agreed to slow the potential takeover of Unocal by a Chinese oil company to allow for a study of the national security and economic implications of the acquisition.

In a decision that could cost support for the bill from some coastal state lawmakers, negotiators beat back efforts by Florida and California House members to strip from the measure a provision that would allow an inventory of offshore oil and gas resources. Some lawmakers view the inventory as a precursor to a push to allow drilling off states that have opposed it.

"I'm here to say that the people of North Carolina right now don't want drilling,'' said Senator Richard Burr, Republican of North Carolina. "We can force it on them or wait until they are ready.''

The House and Senate reached similar agreement on energy legislation in 2003, but the measure stalled in the Senate over objections to a plan to provide producers and distributors of the gasoline additive MTBE some legal immunity from lawsuits. In a decision that helped the bill's prospects this year, lawmakers on Sunday abandoned that plan. Hoping to dodge another obstacle, senators on Monday rejected a House proposal to relax some clean air standards.

Approval of the legislation would be a victory for President Bush, who has pressed for a new energy policy since taking office in 2001 and urged lawmakers to deliver a plan before leaving at the end of this week for a monthlong summer recess.

"Four years is long enough to wait for comprehensive energy legislation," the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said Monday.

The final version of the energy plan is certain to come under attack by some lawmakers and conservation groups who consider it too heavily skewed in favor of traditional oil and gas companies, which it showers with billions of dollars of aid and tax breaks at a time when high oil prices are producing huge profits.

As the nine-hour negotiating session was nearing an end, Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, failed in an effort to eliminate some of the relief from drilling royalties that the industry would receive through the bill, arguing that it was wrong to let oil companies escape fees for drilling on public land. "We might as well be giving tax breaks to Donald Trump and Warren Buffett here tonight,'' said Mr. Markey. The Republican-led House majority on the conference committee quickly rejected his proposal.

In a disappointment for environmental advocates, House members on Monday rejected an effort to incorporate a plan passed by the Senate to require utilities to use more renewable energy like wind and solar power to generate electricity. They also defeated a bid to direct the president to find ways to cut the nation's appetite for oil by one million barrels a day within 10 years.

Backers of the initiative to identify the oil savings said it was an alternative to the politically difficult approach of increasing automotive gas mileage standards and would demonstrate that Congress was serious about cutting the nation's dependence on oil imports.

"We are having an energy bill that is doing so much on the supply side that we need to address the demand side," said Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, who said the goal was the "bare minimum of what we ought to be doing."

But Republican opponents of the plan said the fuel savings target could lead to unpopular restrictions like mandatory car pools and put too much responsibility for achieving the goal in the hands of the president.

"Just telling the president to wave a magic wand and tell each and every one of us that we need to conserve may sound good," said Mr. Barton, who was in charge of the House-Senate negotiations, "but those of us elected by the people every two years have a different view of that."

Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, the senior Democrat on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said his plan to require power plant operators who now rely on coal, oil and natural gas to increase their use of renewable fuels was a low-cost, market-driven approach to cutting demand for fossil fuels and easing air pollution.

Under the proposal, which has repeatedly passed the Senate, utilities would have to generate at least 10 percent of their electricity through renewable fuels by 2020.

But opponents of the initiative, known as the renewable portfolio standard, said it would drive up the cost of electricity, conflict with similar state initiatives and put a burden on utilities in some regions where acceptable alternative fuels are in short supply.

While House and Senate negotiators on energy policy met into the night in an effort to agree on an energy measure that could clear the House and Senate this week, a separate group of lawmakers was trying to hash out the tax elements of an energy proposal.

Lawmakers and aides said they expected the tax breaks and incentives to cost in the neighborhood of $11.5 billion: more than sought by the House and White House but less than approved by the Senate. Should lawmakers agree on that figure, the tax package was expected to include a substantial emphasis on tax credits for energy efficiency.
link (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/26/politics/26cnd-energy.html?pagewanted=3)

And once again, conservation is given back seat to tax breaks for oil companies which incedentally posted record profits last year. McClellan says that four years is long enough to wait for an energy bill. I'd gladly wait four more years for a good one.

And then saying the President has little power over gas prices - um, how much has the price of a barrel of oil gone up since we invaded Iraq? 10, 15, 20 dollars? Also, if the President was pushing for stricter standards rather than bigger tax breaks, guess what? We'd probably have stricter standards and less tax breaks. The President cannot affect the specifics, but he can set the tone and the priorities. The WH is copping out. Surprise.

They took four years to even admit that the companies producing MTBE shouldn't be shielded from clean-up, and that the clean-up (from another source) will be mainly government funded. State and local, mind you, not federal.

What a bunch of corporate stooges.

I've written many a letter to my congressmen and senators, and almost always get a response - from a flunky, at least. But I have to wonder if the message is actually getting through. Congress always seems to do the opposite of what I think is the correct course. I mean, are there millions of Americans writing their representatives saying "please, we don't think oil companies are getting enough help from the government"? Or, "senator, could you please make sure that my next car won't have higher gas mileage?" Or "I would like the Senate to emphasize more pollution-generating energy sources instead of looking towards alternative/renewable energy." ???

[zimv20]

are there millions of Americans writing their representatives saying "please, we don't think oil companies are getting enough help from the government"? Or, "senator, could you please make sure that my next car won't have higher gas mileage?" Or "I would like the Senate to emphasize more pollution-generating energy sources instead of looking towards alternative/renewable energy." ???
seemingly, given this quote from the article, "but those of us elected by the people every two years have a different view of that."

i think that when people aren't voting from fear, they're voting from their wallets. high gas prices = bad, while low gas prices = good. the means to those ends are a little much for people to care about, apparently.

[Desertrat]

There was a NYT article some days back talking about the record profits of oil companies. Finally, down near the end of the article, there was a comment that profits were running about eight percent. The long-term average for major corporations used to be in the four to six percent range; it's been below that in recent years. While it's a lot of dollars, it's not much of a big deal in terms of ROI.

As far as tax breaks and drilling, Big Oil generally doesn't do drilling in the US. The biggies get the offshore leases and do platform drilling, but on land the drilling is subbed out. On-land drilling is most commonly done by multitudes of independent operators. That's why in places like Odessa you'll see bumper stickers with, "Lord, just give me one more good well. I promise I won't piss it away this time." For that matter, many of the wells are owned by independents, who then sell the oil and gas to independent refiners as well as the Biggies.

I've read that the recent jumps in gasoline prices cut SUV sales by some 27%. Does anybody have any later info? Seems like the marketplace will be self-healing as to consumption, if more folks are buying high-milers instead of gas hogs.

'Rat

[zimv20]

I've read that the recent jumps in gasoline prices cut SUV sales by some 27%.
great news, hopefully it's just a start.

now, how 'bout some congressional / WH leadership on increasing CAFE mileage standards?

[Desertrat]

I'm not sure increasing the CAFE is necessarily the best way to go. I've long favored a weight tax, with the monies to go into highway maintenance funds (not construction). Lighter vehicles just naturally get better mileage, particularly in town. One problem with the idea of pushing the CAFE is that it hits the sedan market the most: You wind up with flimsy, no-acceleration junk. Too many people who don't need full-size pickups buy the damned things (4,500 pounds and more), and you flat-out aren't gonna get a full-size pickup to get better than around 20 mpg.

I'd like to see a change in the tax laws about company vehicles. Now, if the GVW is at or above 6,500 pounds, it's a 100% writeoff regardless of cost. That leads to giantism is "company vehicles" such as one-ton 4WD Suburbans and suchlike. Quit being mad at Corporate America and let them write off 100% of anything, with maybe an upper $$$ limit of $40,000 or $50,000 instead of the $13,000 limit on cars with a GVW under 6,500 pounds. That would get rid of a lot of Cowboy Cadillacs...

'Rat

[mactastic]

Come on 'Rat... I wouldn't call an Accord flimsy or say it lacks acceleration capability. If they can do it, why can't others?

[zimv20]

I'm not sure increasing the CAFE is necessarily the best way to go.
i'm not talking about upping it, say, 10 mpg in a year. what about .5/mpg per year for 20 years? give the reluctant US automakers some time to plan ahead.

and i'm open to all sorts of ideas, including weight taxes. if we're all this clever part-time, why can't our full-time reps be even more so?

[Desertrat]

Hey, mac, Hondas are among the best there are. Those engines are built like watches. I did a rebuild on a Civic, and some buyers' checks on several Accords for a buddy of mine.

There's always gonna be price competition within a given model class, which means that if you want to sell a given car for a given price, if it costs more to provide the more economical mpg package, something has to give. Either a smaller motor (less acceleration on a freeway ramp) or thinner sheet metal and bumpers--or thinner metal in suspensions and axle housings. TANSTAAFL.

zim, the incremental bit would drive all manufacturers nuts. They work on multi-year cycles. Better to go for, say, a 10% improvement as a goal for, say 2008 or 2009. Let it be known that that would be The Deal for some ten years. That gives the engineers and sheet-metal folks time to get packages put together that would have reasonable reliability.

A ten-percent increase in fuel mileage would mean a serious drop in demand for gasoline; coupled with the marketplace impact of higher prices and (maybe) a weight tax, the bottom line could be maybe a 20% reduction within a few years. That's noticeable. It also gives time--as important to our nation as it was to Napoleon--to bring more alternatives on line. It seems to me that right now our whole energy deal is a transition period, and it's not an overnight thing.

One thing in the article about the energy bill that's as serious as a heart attack was the comment about re-election. The public at large won't tolerate serious disruptions in a lifestyle without its being gradual. Draconic changes would bring about promises of free Bubble Up and you'd see all manner of advancing to the past.

Separately, given that none of the non-transportation-fuel portion of a barrel of oil is wasted, if we use less gasoline--and thus less crude oil, what happens in the prices of products derived from petro-chemicals?

'Rat

[zimv20]

A ten-percent increase in fuel mileage would mean a serious drop in demand for gasoline; coupled with the marketplace impact of higher prices and (maybe) a weight tax, the bottom line could be maybe a 20% reduction within a few years.
sounds good to me. now let's add tax incentives to buy vehicles that meet certain high mileage and low emission criteria, coupled w/ tax disincentives on vehicles w/ the opposite characteristics, and more carpool lanes where traffic offense payments go towards public transportation, and i think we've got a good start.

[Desertrat]

"...low emissions criteria..."

What do you mean when you say that? I recall from some EPA commentary back in the last century ( :D ) that some 93% of the removable toxic stuff had been removed from auto exhausts. The mix of chemistry in the fuel, the higher combustion temperatures and the catalytic reactors have done about all that can be done.

It's historical fact that as the mpg goes up, people drive more and the total demand for gasoline has increased right along with this. Factor in the distances people now commute--which I think is one of the contributions to both total use and smog. I don't know about Old Farts and RVs, as to a percentage of total use. CAFE doesn't affect them.

I haven't googled around for it lately: Anybody know the present auto population of the US? And, what's the present sales rate of new cars, per year? Anyhow, you divide the former by the latter and that will give you some feel for how long it would take for any sort of new measures to show effectiveness...

'Rat

[anonymous161]

Spend 4 years on an energy bill that manages little more than a promise to "look into" alternative energy sources and conservation. Oh, and throw in a few million in tax breaks for Big Oil why we are talking about it. That is just asstastic. At some point in time, we have to sit down and talk about reducing the need for oil because no matter how much you think is out there, oil is not infinite and it is not renewable. There isn't an alternate source that can provide as much specific energy, that is a known fact, but surely subsidizing our current oil use with alternatives can help. I have a few ideas, most of which aren't new, so feel free to poke holes. Remember, most of these are just small things that could help when combined.

CAFE standards need to be increased and the concept of "light truck" needs to be redefined. Right now anything with a flat load floor constitutes a truck, which includes mini vans, wagons, and car based SUVs. This is stupid.
A tax should be added to any vehicle that is not within 20% of the recommended MPG for its class.
A tax reduction on any vehilce that has 20% better MPG than its class.

As Rat said, as MPG goes up so does distance driven. Let's mandate fuel tank size based on the concept of total range. And instead of almost 400 miles, lets reduce that to 300 miles. So, if a car like my Civic averages 30 mpg urban, it should have a 10 gallon (approx) tank. Then, no matter how efficient a car is or isn't, a driver is filling up every 300 miles like everyone else. I think needing to fill up more often could convince people to drive less.

Reduce tax on diesel and biodiesel. Expand tax incentives on biodiesel and bioethanol based vehicles.

Instead of depreciating based on GVW, allow businesses to depreciate vehicles that meet fuel economy standards, with seperate standards for trucks and cars.

Tax on gasoline powered reacreational equipment like boats, ATVs, etc. Extra tax on 2 stroke powered equipment.

Tax on reacreational fuel for boats, jet skis, snowmobiles, ATVs and lawn equipment. Basically, anything you put into one of those red fuel containers should be taxed. Tax on 2 stroke oils as well.

Tax break to single vehicle households

Tax break/bond incentive for buying a primary residence in an "urban zone" My state offered a bond for first time home buyers that paid the down payment on my house. This was based on total income, house price, and relative urbanization. I then had more money to make improvements to the property. If a program like this could be combined with a annual tax break, I think that suburban flight could be slowed somewhat, which would definitely aid in fuel consumption.

Additional "energy guzzler" taxes on homes over a certain square footage.
Tax incentives on the most efficient insulation and home building materials.

A higher overall gasoline tax is probably needed as well, unfortunately. Unless you pushed a windfall tax on Big Oil.

None of these ideas are that great, but even a few not-so-great ideas could offer a better future than no ideas at all.

[Desertrat]

"Tax policy is public policy." For instance, the deduction of interest for home loans is an expression of public policy favoring ownership of one's home.

Similarly, use of taxation can be a public policy expression concerning conservation of energy. The big problem is that all the ideas that have been expressed about taxation and vehicles insofar as usage are brand new to Joe Sixpack. If Joe gets the perception that he's being treated unfairly, he'll happily leap into bed with whatever lobbyists seem to be helping him.

Right now, "Five acres, five miles from town" is a powerful, emotional "thing" that's going on. Some of this is enabled by the Internet, insofar as working at home. Some of it is us retired Old Farts.

And some of us have lived for years where a Honda Civic just won't do very well. (Today's picture.)

'Rat

[diamond geezer]

Check out this letter:

link (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/072705T.shtml)

$1.5 Billion Giveaway Secretly Slipped into Energy Bill, Waxman Says
By Rep. Henry Waxman
YubaNet.com

Wednesday 27 July 2005

In a letter to Speaker Hastert, Rep. Waxman writes that after the energy legislation was closed to further amendment in the recently concluded conference, a $1.5 billion provision benefiting oil and gas companies, Halliburton, and Sugar Land, Texas, was mysteriously inserted in the text.

The text of the letter is below:

The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert
Speaker
US House of Representatives
H232 Capitol
Washington, DC 20515-6501

Dear Mr. Speaker:

I am writing to draw to your attention a provision in the Energy Conference Report that raises serious procedural and substantive concerns. At its essence, this provision is a $1.5 billion giveaway to the oil industry, Halliburton, and Sugar Land, Texas. The provision was inserted into the energy legislation after the conference was closed, so members of the conference committee had no opportunity to consider or reject this measure. Before the final energy legislation is brought to the House floor, this provision should be deleted.

The provision at issue is a 30-page subtitle called "Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Resources." This subtitle, which was taken from the House-passed energy bill, was mysteriously inserted in the final energy legislation after the legislation was closed to further amendment. The conferees were told that they would have the opportunity to consider and vote on the provisions in the conference report. But the subtitle was not included in the base text circulated to conferees, and it was never offered as an amendment.

Instead, the new subtitle first appeared in the text of the energy legislation only after Chairman Barton had gaveled the conference over. Obviously, it would be a serious abuse to secretly slip such a costly and controversial provision into the energy legislation.

On the merits, the subtitle is an indefensible giveaway to one of the most profitable industries in America. The provision establishes a $1.5 billion fund, up to $550 million of which would be dedicated direct spending, which is not subject to the normal congressional appropriations process. Although the name of the subtitle refers to "ultra-deepwater and unconventional natural gas," it appears that the $1.5 billion fund created by the subtitle can in fact be used for many oil and gas projects. According to the language of the subtitle, oil and gas companies can apply for funds for a wide variety of activities, including activities involving "innovative exploration and production techniques" or "enhanced recovery techniques." While oil and gas companies could be required to contribute to the costs of their projects, the subtitle expressly provides that the Department has discretion to reduce or eliminate any such contribution.

The subtitle appears to steer the administration of 75% of the $1.5 billion fund to a private consortium located in the district of Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Ordinarily, a large fund like this would be administered directly by the government. The subtitle, however, directs the Department to "contract with a corporation that is constructed as a consortium." The leading contender for this contract appears to be the Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA) consortium, housed in the Texas Energy Center in Sugar Land, Texas. Halliburton is a member of RPSEA and sits on the board, as does Marathon Oil Company. The subtitle provides that the consortium can keep up to 10% of the funds - in this case, over $100 million - in administrative expenses.

The subtitle further provides that members of the consortium, such as Halliburton and Marathon Oil, can receive awards from the over $1 billion fund administered by the consortium.

In short, the subtitle provides that taxpayers will hire a private consortium controlled by the oil and gas industry to hand out over $1 billion to oil and gas companies. There is no conceivable rationale for this extraordinary largess. The oil and gas industry is reporting record income and profits. According to one analyst, the net income of the top oil companies will total $230 billion in 2005. If Congress has an extra $1.5 billion to give away, the money should be used to help families struggling to pay for soaring gasoline prices - not to further enrich oil and gas companies that are rolling in profits.

In recent years, Congress has been repeatedly embarrassed by the mysterious insertion of provisions in omnibus legislation. Last year, for example, we learned only after House action that the 3,000 page, $388 billion omnibus spending bill allowed members and staff of the Appropriations Committee to examine the tax returns of ordinary Americans. We should not allow this to happen again. The Energy Conference Report should not be brought to the House floor until this objectionable provision is deleted and there is ample opportunity for members to read the legislation and delete any other problematic provisions.

Thank you for your attention to this problem.

Sincerely,

Henry A. Waxman
Ranking Minority Member

cc: The Honorable Nancy Pelosi

Just amazing.

[anonymous161]

"Tax policy is public policy." For instance, the deduction of interest for home loans is an expression of public policy favoring ownership of one's home.

Similarly, use of taxation can be a public policy expression concerning conservation of energy. The big problem is that all the ideas that have been expressed about taxation and vehicles insofar as usage are brand new to Joe Sixpack. If Joe gets the perception that he's being treated unfairly, he'll happily leap into bed with whatever lobbyists seem to be helping him.

Right now, "Five acres, five miles from town" is a powerful, emotional "thing" that's going on. Some of this is enabled by the Internet, insofar as working at home. Some of it is us retired Old Farts.

And some of us have lived for years where a Honda Civic just won't do very well. (Today's picture.)

'Rat

I agree. But (there is always a but) the two energy conservation proposals that will have the smallest impact on Joe Sixpack's daily life (increasing CAFE standards across fleets and requiring energy companies to power 10% of their grids with alternative sources) keep getting booted by short-sighted lawmakers who seem to feel that as long as we ignore the problem there will be plenty of "texas tea" in the ground.

I guess I could start a letter writing campaign to Detroit: "Pretty please Mr. GM, could you increase the fuel economy in your V8 Silverado, I have been a real good boy this year."

Or even better: "Dear American Electric Power, I am writing to inform you that if you do not convert 10% of your power generation to wind farming or some other alternative energy source within the next 5 years I am going to stop paying my bill."
Goodbye MacRumors, hello candles and a flashlight.

[IJ Reilly]

The energy industry spent over $300 million lobbying congress during the last 2 1/2 years. Now, that might seem like a lot of money to you and me, but it was a great investment, which paid off with a handsome $11 billion transfer of wealth from the taxpayers to the industry -- just like the rigged slot machine it is. And for all that, the "energy bill" isn't going to result in the production of a significant amount of new energy. It won't have any impact on the cost of your next fill-up, or the one after that or the one after that... or any fill-up, ever!

Just keep voting for those Republicans, boys and girls. They're certainly looking after your interests.

If you're an oil company.

[Dont Hurt Me]

The energy industry spent over $300 million lobbying congress during the last 2 1/2 years. Now, that might seem like a lot of money to you and me, but it was a great investment, which paid off with a handsome $11 billion transfer of wealth from the taxpayers to the industry -- just like the rigged slot machine it is. And for all that, the "energy bill" isn't going to result in the production of a significant amount of new energy. It won't have any impact on the cost of your next fill-up, or the one after that or the one after that... or any fill-up, ever!

Just keep voting for those Republicans, boys and girls. They're certainly looking after your interests.

If you're an oil company.This is whats going on, Congress is for sale to most these corporations. Also dont forget the Automakers who give big time which has given us MPG standards that come from the 80s. We can do better but until the american people cut off corporation purse strings, congress will allways be doing business for special interest at the cost of every American. Congress has made Bribes a way of doing its business.

[Desertrat]

Back in the 1970s when I worked on the Coastal Zone management Program, a joint NOAA/state deal, I met a lot of movers and shakers in Big Industry. A large number of them are truly puzzled as to why they're picked on, when their jobs--as they see it--are to give the public what it wants in the way of products.

If, somehow, people in general didn't have the "keep up with the Joneses" attitude, would they buy the luxury gas hogs? Would small families buy/build five-bedroom houses?

How do you persuade people to act in both their own interest and that of the country as a whole? I don't have any sort of free-society answer. Without forcing, how do you persuade or educate folks into the idea that big, heavy vehicles are poor investment decisions for transport of only one or two people and a few groceries? How do you persuade folks that incredible quantities of material "stuff" aren't necessary to achieve True Happiness?

Or, maybe, how is it that so many people equate tons of material possessions with True Happiness?

'Rat

[mactastic]

How do you persuade people to act in both their own interest and that of the country as a whole? I don't have any sort of free-society answer.
"Tax policy is public policy." For instance, the deduction of interest for home loans is an expression of public policy favoring ownership of one's home.

Similarly, use of taxation can be a public policy expression concerning conservation of energy.
I think you do have an answer.

You don't force. You suggest. You incentivize the interests of the country so people have a reason to put the country's interests higher up on the priority list.

[Dont Hurt Me]

As long as Big Business pays for Congress campaigns you are never going to get these folks to act in "OUR" Interest.

[Desertrat]

I wandered over to http://www.whiskeyandgunpowder.com and found this guy's views:

http://www.whiskeyandgunpowder.com/Archives/20050726.html

Oil folks can lobby and Congress can dither, but sooner or later the icy teeth of reality will bite folks on the butt.

I've been watching the various bits and pieces about the economies and demands for oil and other commodities of China and India. It's hard for me to argue with some of the author's conclusions.

Developed nations depend on energy and transportation. Economies, standards of living, etc. People go to war over that stuff...

'Rat

[mpw]

...It's historical fact that as the mpg goes up, people drive more and the total demand for gasoline has increased right along with this.....

Not sure I buy that.

True over time the demand for gasoline has increased becuase people more poeple drive and more people drive more. The mpg of the average vehicle has also improved with time.

Your quote seems to imply that it's the better fuel economy that has caused the explosion in car use but I think it's just a fact that car use would have grown as it has even with poor gas mileage. America, I think it's fair to say, has about the highest car use but the average American car has a low gas mileage.

Average gas mileage could be massively improved if:-
We didn't add 100kg of sound insulation etc. to a new car just as we improve its gas milage by a couple of mpg.
There was a move to manual transmission from autos.
Fashion didn't dictate that everyone drive SUV's
We accepted that the speed limit, whether legal or practical, means there's no point in having a car that can reach 208mph with four passengers.

Elsewhere in the world of energy saving.
I read an article recently, from a UK paper, about the amount of electrical energy that is used by household appliances on stand-by. I was shocked to find out that for example a dishwasher uses around 50% of the power it uses while working when it's sat on stand-by at the end of a cycle! The list was extensive and shocking in that if people, in the UK, put their water heaters on a timer so water wasn't constantly being heater overnight etc. the power saved could power the lighting requirements in a major city.

[mactastic]

More and more, we're actually moving to on-demand water heaters. They cost more up front but are highly desired by homeowners because they consume just about zero energy when hot water isn't being used. They also install in the wall rather than taking up space on the floor. The technology has improved quite a bit in recent years too.

[IJ Reilly]

I'm trying to think of an important energy saving technology that was invented in the US or wasn't adopted here last if at all. On-demand water heating just one technology in use just about everywhere -- but not in the US. Why isn't making them more popular part of the energy bill? Could it be because this administration and this congress really don't believe in energy conservation? Could it be that they're completely in the thrall the energy producers, who haven't got any financial interest in seeing the US consume less energy per capita -- and who richly reward members of congress for not caring?

Yeah, those poor guys in the oil and gas industry -- they are so unfairly picked on. They scarf up $11 billion of our tax dollars for essentially nothing and some of us have the actual temerity to notice the fleecing. Tell me another bedtime story...

[Desertrat]

"Yeah, those poor guys in the oil and gas industry -- they are so unfairly picked on. They scarf up $11 billion of our tax dollars for essentially nothing..."

IJ, that's not at all the point. Whether car makers or big ranchers or oilmen, they see themselves as supplying a demand. They meet the demand. They don't understand why that's seen as bad.

Further, they don't see themselves as screwing the public, whether they are or not. They don't think that way. They love to "get over" on other oil companies, but insofar as their lobbying efforts, it's purely and simply to protect the bottom line.

What you're talking about is the effort to direct governmental interactions within a business sector. Big Oil is in business to make money; government actions affect the money, so Big Oil tries to affect government. This process is the same for any special interest group.

Your gripe oughta be with those in Congress who let themselves be persuaded to our detriment.

'Rat

[Dont Hurt Me]

I'm trying to think of an important energy saving technology that was invented in the US or wasn't adopted here last if at all. On-demand water heating just one technology in use just about everywhere -- but not in the US. Why isn't making them more popular part of the energy bill? Could it be because this administration and this congress really don't believe in energy conservation? Could it be that they're completely in the thrall the energy producers, who haven't got any financial interest in seeing the US consume less energy per capita -- and who richly reward members of congress for not caring?

Yeah, those poor guys in the oil and gas industry -- they are so unfairly picked on. They scarf up $11 billion of our tax dollars for essentially nothing and some of us have the actual temerity to notice the fleecing. Tell me another bedtime story...
Nice post and i so agree, democrats and republicans both are fighting over who can screw us harder.

[anonymous161]

"Yeah, those poor guys in the oil and gas industry -- they are so unfairly picked on. They scarf up $11 billion of our tax dollars for essentially nothing..."

IJ, that's not at all the point. Whether car makers or big ranchers or oilmen, they see themselves as supplying a demand. They meet the demand. They don't understand why that's seen as bad.

Further, they don't see themselves as screwing the public, whether they are or not. They don't think that way. They love to "get over" on other oil companies, but insofar as their lobbying efforts, it's purely and simply to protect the bottom line.

'Rat

You are painting them as ignorant good ole' boys who are just doing their jobs. No way. They are smart businessmen who know that for them to win someone else has to lose. They don't just "get over" on other oil companies, the get over on regular people who are just trying to live. They know that billions in tax cuts and incentives have to come out of the pockets of someone else.

Besides, anyone who sees the world as a two-dimensional "supply and demand" construct is an immoral son of a bitch.

Ultimately, yes, it is our congressmen who need to be reached to bring change. Unfortunately, they are all whores and Big Oil's wallet is quite a bit fatter than mine.
I guess I have to write another letter..

[IJ Reilly]

IJ, that's not at all the point. Whether car makers or big ranchers or oilmen, they see themselves as supplying a demand. They meet the demand. They don't understand why that's seen as bad.

Further, they don't see themselves as screwing the public, whether they are or not. They don't think that way. They love to "get over" on other oil companies, but insofar as their lobbying efforts, it's purely and simply to protect the bottom line.

What you're talking about is the effort to direct governmental interactions within a business sector. Big Oil is in business to make money; government actions affect the money, so Big Oil tries to affect government. This process is the same for any special interest group.

Your gripe oughta be with those in Congress who let themselves be persuaded to our detriment.

'Rat

When was the last time you heard any corporation (or individual, for that matter) admit that they were deliberately screwing somebody? Of course that's not what they say, or even what they necessarily believe. But they will do as much shafting as possible, no matter whether they call it "serving our customers," "benefiting our stockholders" or "competing vigorously" (the last being Microsoft's favorite rhetorical defense for violating antitrust laws left and right).

But I'm not even close to arguing over this point. It should be clear from everything I've said so far that my quarrel is with this congress and this administration for warping every policy towards some industrial interest, and filling their pockets with our money on demand. How you feel about this sort of thing, I really don't know.

[mactastic]

Funny how the re-distribution of wealth doesn't faze certain people when it's not going to social programs...

[Desertrat]

anon, I'm not at all claiming "ignorant good old boys". I'm saying their mindset is not at all what you're saying about their motivations. As far as the tax breaks hurting others, the idea doesn't even occur to them.

Look: Again I'll draw on my CZMP days. I've watched oil company execs as environmentalists tried to make them understand about harm to the environment. The execs flat out didn't understand what was being said. I sorta translated, "What they're saying is, don't screw up the hunting and fishing." You could see the lights turn on.

Once again, that I don't rail against things does not mean I condone them.

Anyhow, a lot of what lobbying is done for tax breaks just shows once again that some sort of revision of our tax code is needed.

As far as lobbying Congress on environmental issues: If some target on emissions is set out in law or regulation, and a time frame is set for an industry to meet it, industry can comply. What can't be handled is any sort of short-term new requirements for changes, simply due to the effects on capital investments for pollution control equipment. A Union Carbide exec once put it that industry can't stand to be in the position of a field-goal kicker who, as he advances to kick the ball, finds the goal posts have been moved.

One thing about being an Old Fart is that I remember what I saw back 40 years ago, and compare it to today. I remember flying past the LA Basin in 1967, and the pilot came on the PA to jokingly point LA, or, '"Well, it's under that brown cloud." A bubble of smog that was mind-boggling. In the middle 1990s, going with my wife to some of her tradeshows there, the bubble was no longer there. Same sort of deal for Houston, with which I am far more familiar.

Lake Erie is no longer called a dead lake. The Cuyahoga River can no longer catch fire and melt a steel bridge over it. The EPA tells us that somewhere north of 90% of the toxins have been removed from automobile exhausts.

Is there room for improvement? I think so. Hell, I know so. But I know how far we've come, as well.

Sure, many in Big Industry have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into Doing Right. Some people there still haven't gotten the message--but a helluva lot of them have come to realize that they and the employees share common problems. A gated community can't wall out smog.

But you can't reason with or persuade people to change if you don't understand their perceptions and motivations--and name-calling makes it a thousand times worse.

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

'Rat, these guy lobby and win more than tax breaks. This time they won waivers on fees for oil and gas exploration on offshore oil leases in federal waters. Why should the get a free pass for the use of the public domain? Because they asked so nicely?

Maybe you should rail against these things once in a while, so we know you're against them.

And let's not fool ourselves: the environmental laws that cleaned up those rivers and lakes starting in the 1970s could not be passed through Congress today.

[anonymous161]

anon, I'm not at all claiming "ignorant good old boys". I'm saying their mindset is not at all what you're saying about their motivations. As far as the tax breaks hurting others, the idea doesn't even occur to them.

Look: Again I'll draw on my CZMP days. I've watched oil company execs as environmentalists tried to make them understand about harm to the environment. The execs flat out didn't understand what was being said. I sorta translated, "What they're saying is, don't screw up the hunting and fishing." You could see the lights turn on.

Once again, that I don't rail against things does not mean I condone them.

Anyhow, a lot of what lobbying is done for tax breaks just shows once again that some sort of revision of our tax code is needed.

As far as lobbying Congress on environmental issues: If some target on emissions is set out in law or regulation, and a time frame is set for an industry to meet it, industry can comply. What can't be handled is any sort of short-term new requirements for changes, simply due to the effects on capital investments for pollution control equipment. A Union Carbide exec once put it that industry can't stand to be in the position of a field-goal kicker who, as he advances to kick the ball, finds the goal posts have been moved.

One thing about being an Old Fart is that I remember what I saw back 40 years ago, and compare it to today. I remember flying past the LA Basin in 1967, and the pilot came on the PA to jokingly point LA, or, '"Well, it's under that brown cloud." A bubble of smog that was mind-boggling. In the middle 1990s, going with my wife to some of her tradeshows there, the bubble was no longer there. Same sort of deal for Houston, with which I am far more familiar.

Lake Erie is no longer called a dead lake. The Cuyahoga River can no longer catch fire and melt a steel bridge over it. The EPA tells us that somewhere north of 90% of the toxins have been removed from automobile exhausts.

Is there room for improvement? I think so. Hell, I know so. But I know how far we've come, as well.

Sure, many in Big Industry have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into Doing Right. Some people there still haven't gotten the message--but a helluva lot of them have come to realize that they and the employees share common problems. A gated community can't wall out smog.

But you can't reason with or persuade people to change if you don't understand their perceptions and motivations--and name-calling makes it a thousand times worse.

'Rat

I guess the oil people I have met here is southern OK are smarter than the oil people you met down Texas way, because up here they know where tax dollars/cuts come from. They also know how to steal money from Iraqis, but that is another story. I was simply voicing my opinion that most people aren't as stupid as they would like you to believe and anyone who puts profits above everything else is an immoral bastard.
Obviously, you can't persuade anyone to do anything if you call them an ignorant ass-clown in so many words, but you can educate them in terms that they can understand, that much I agree with. The problem has been that instead of trying to motivate and educate these people, the individuals we elect to protect us and our future let them off the hook and then reward them with our money.
I would like to see what would happen if I changed the oil in my car at a local public park and then dumped the oil and the old filter in the lake. I am sure that my "ignorance" of the effects on the fish and birds wouldn't get me out of the ticket. I am also sure that if I billed my neighbor for the cost of the ticket he would call me an ignorant ass-clown, in so many words.

And let's not fool ourselves: the environmental laws that cleaned up those rivers and lakes starting in the 1970s could not be passed through Congress today.

I feel that this issue is indicative of a larger problem. I think that the common people of this country have lost all control and influence over their government. The only time they need us anymore is election time and even then candidates pick a platform that they may stick to but more than likely won't once the lobby money starts flowing. Seriously, when was the last time public policy went our way? The FCC is a corporate pandering joke. The EPA has no legs. Oligopolies run every major industry. The Patriot Act is an Orwellian nightmare. No Child Left Behind is child-molding prison sentence that also happens to help the military recruit kids in high school. Social security. Medicare. Why can't anyone afford to go to the doctor? A defense budget that would make Regan blush. Millions of immigrants being exploited. And on. And on. Can someone tell me the last time public policy was made that actually was of benefit to the public?

Maybe you should rail against these things once in a while, so we know you're against them.

We are all a choir here aren't we? It is sad when Rat ends up being the closest thing to opposition we have on most issues. "I think things are bad" "You're wrong, things are really bad"

[Desertrat]

Opinion: That EPA enforcement is watered down is due to the public at large believing that "the government is taking care of us" and no watch-dogging is really needed. I guess it's an attention-span thing. You can see this in many other arenas.

I dunno. No matter what I've ever done to try to affect any governmental actions, the trend remains away from serious listening to the citizenry except during times of major national outcry. (This SCOTUS decision on eminent domain comes to mind as the most recent; the very concept of the NEPA is another.) So, rather than rail, I try to analyze and understand as best I can so that I can defend myself against the various rules and regulations which could affect my life.

It's not that I favor or support such things as the oil company efforts; it's that I have never seen any way to stop or change them. I forget the name of the science fiction book from back in the 1950s, but the author's view of the growth of corporate power and the interactions with government have surely come to pass. That's a half-century of relatively uninterrupted "progress" in corporate power.

We're a money- and toys-driven society. Material standard of living is more important than measuring ourselves by contentment. So, IMO some revisions of our tax codes would do more to remove the incentives of Oil Folks (and others) to do all this lobbying than our other efforts. I guess. Again, some of my notions come from the old saw about repeating experiments and expecting different results. Doesn't matter if it's a fight against corporate power or the War on Drugs. If something's not working, try a different approach.

It seems to me that if one removes the economic incentive to do wrong, there's less wrongdoing.

Anon: Note that in many of these discussions, I don't argue against y'all's goals so much as the "how to" for achieving them. "We're all trying to get to Heaven; the argument is about which road to take to get there." :)

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

'Rat, what do you mean by "the very concept of NEPA"? You seem to think the fact that rivers and lakes are no longer toxic waste dumps is a sign of real progress. But how did these things happen -- because polluters suddenly grew a conscience? No, it was because of laws like NEPA, which you seem to believe are totally out of step with what regular people want. So where's the beef?

[anonymous161]

'Rat, what do you mean by "the very concept of NEPA"? You seem to think the fact that rivers and lakes are no longer toxic waste dumps is a sign of real progress. But how did these things happen -- because polluters suddenly grew a conscience? No, it was because of laws like NEPA, which you seem to believe are totally out of step with what regular people want. So where's the beef?

I think environmental protection is out of step with what most people want. Protection against pollution, in the popular view, restricts what people can do and drives up the costs of goods. Listen to how much people bitch if they can only mow their lawns or water their gardens in the evening. Nevermind that their grandchildren might be able to see a blue sky instead of a brown one. People don't care about their children any more than they care about God. People are inherently selfish little things that want to have "more better" stuff than everyone else. It probably stems from the fact the all people feel powerless and by being king of the mountain and driving the biggest SUV they can pretend that they aren't weak, decaying flesh. This is in direct opposition to the reduction in consumption that we will all need to survive.

Living married in my early 20's (with a baby on the way no less!), I appreciate the more "seasoned" opinions of others and I too prefer that we at least try to beat these dead horses with new sticks instead of the same old ones.

Anon: Note that in many of these discussions, I don't argue against y'all's goals so much as the "how to" for achieving them. "We're all trying to get to Heaven; the argument is about which road to take to get there."

'Rat

Sometimes I wonder whether most people are "trying to get to Heaven" or whether they are trying to get away with what they can and not to go to Hell.

[Thanatoast]

Well, it passed. Bush is probably giggling like a schoolgirl at the moment, as there's no doubt he'll sign it into law. Somehow I doubt the Congress will get the resounding kick in the ass that it deserves. We could hope that the press will point out that this bill gives multiple times more money to oil than to alternative energy, and doesn't actually solve our petroleum problem, but I'm not holding my breath.

That's $40 from every man, woman and child in America that is now going to oil and gas companies. Not including tax breaks, of course.

[Desertrat]

"No, it was because of laws like NEPA, which you seem to believe are totally out of step with what regular people want."

Wrong, IJ. It was things like the Cuyahoga catching fire; books like "Silent Spring", and the pollution of the Houston Ship Channel or the inability to see the sky on a cloudless day that created a nationwide demand to "Clean up this (bleep) mess!" I was right in there with them.

Where I gripe is that in some areas we've gone berzerkoid on what's important. While I have numerous examples, I'll stay with my favorite because of the larger scope:

When dredging of the Corpus Christi ship channel is needed, the permitting process involves the USCE, EPA, USF&WS, NMF, Texas Parks & Wildlife and the State Health Department. Public hearings are attended by--among others--the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society. Fine. All well and good. I have no problem with this public process.

The sticking point is that the material to be dredged has 50% more Cesium in it than the EPA allowable. All manner of special handling is required. And, the standard view of the Sierra Club in particular is that no dredging be done at all. (This is all historical since I first started observing it in 1970, during damage survey work after Hurricane Celia.)

Nobody ever asks whence cometh this dirt. Nobody seems to care that the only source is the surrounding soils of Nueces County. It doesn't seem to matter that some quarter-million people have been living there for decades with no detrimental health effects from the Cesium. (Decades? Heck, centuries; the Carancahuas preceded the Spanish and Mexicans.) They raise crops, breathe the dust and play on the beaches--all the while exposed to this over-the-limit horror.

Does it never occur to anybody to question EPA's decision as to the limit? No. If EPA is correct, why do we not evacuate and raze Nueces County?

And that's an example, overall, big picture, of what I'm talking about when I talk about the "too much" aspect of government. The same holds for crap like the Patriot Act or the snoopiness of the Census Bureau...

'Rat

[mactastic]

Those things require laws to back up public sentiment. You can say that such things as 'Silent Spring' were the impetus behind public sentiment to clean up the environment, but you need regulatory muscle to back up such sentiment.

You can't argue that books and fires forced people to clean up their act any more than you can argue that 'The Jungle' forced meatpackers to clean up theirs. The laws that were passed as a result are what make things happen.

[IJ Reilly]

Wrong, IJ. It was things like the Cuyahoga catching fire; books like "Silent Spring", and the pollution of the Houston Ship Channel or the inability to see the sky on a cloudless day that created a nationwide demand to "Clean up this (bleep) mess!" I was right in there with them.

Nope. These activities were made illegal, and at least some who'd caused the messes were compelled by force of law to clean them up. NEPA, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act. Books like "Silent Spring" raised awareness, but did not change anything on the ground. The "nationwide demand" you refer to was translated into laws, which is precisely how this stuff is supposed to work in a democracy.

You may be older than I am, but so much that you can pull the rank of age on this one. I was there too.

You also don't need to tell me about screwed up environmental laws. I know about that business full well. I'm not going to defend stupid laws or bad processes of any kind -- but OTOH nobody is going to tell me we got cleaner water and air because people decided to do it voluntarily. If that's what you meant, and I sure hope it isn't, then you're telling us fairy tales out of class.

[Desertrat]

Sheesh! OF COURSE, it took the force of law! What do you think forced Congress to get off its dead butt and pass the laws? A sudden epiphany of good will toward The Environment?

NEPA '69 came about because of the public outcry. The public outcry came from the examples I gave.

I was among the many who wrote electedcritters in favor of NEPA. In favor of the ESA. In favor of a lot of stuff. Contributed to candidates who "promised" to Do Good.

What I gripe about is that regardless of the intent of the public and/or Congress, there is too often either under-enforcement or over-enforcement of various laws. Whether environmental or social, programs seem to get out of control, with lives of their own, and constituencies who start making money from them. It's my opinion that most folks, once a law is passed and the newspapers say Good Things Will Happen, lose interest and don't thereafter pay attention to the ensuing patterns...

When I say "constituencies making money", a good example is the old 55 mph speed limit. Who resisted raising it back? Insurance companies, Justices of the Peace and lawyers. And the manufacturers of radar detectors.

Or you start some non-profit corporation to Do Good for the Environment or for the Poor. You write a bunch of proposals about how you'll Do Good to various Foundations. Your letterhead has various Big Names from your area who approve of Doing Good. Grant monies come in. Fine. You, as Prez, pay yourself a bunch; your wife is VP and gets a bunch, and BIL is Secy/Treas for a bunch. You do some good. No problem. But you live well while doing it. Think "expense account". Don't believe me? Check out your Secy of State's office at the capitol for non-profits and see what they do...

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

No matter what I've ever done to try to affect any governmental actions, the trend remains away from serious listening to the citizenry except during times of major national outcry. (This SCOTUS decision on eminent domain comes to mind as the most recent; the very concept of the NEPA is another.)

"The very concept of NEPA." Not the implementation, not the abuse, not the over or under enforcement, but the very concept of NEPA.

I'm sure glad we cleared that up. Sheesh yourself.

[Desertrat]

I've always seen it as obvious, have taken it for granted, that few Congresscritters are really capable of original thought. Ideas come from all over the place, and sometimes an idea spreads throughout the general public to where the noise level wakes up Congress.

The idea, the concept of controlling pollution and protecting the environment thus arose pretty much from all over the country as more and more people woke up to the problems. Little by little, after some years of noise level, the squeaky wheel got the grease.

Did you ever read the Nader Group's book about the Savannah River and its problems? One of the few things where I really agreed with Nader.

In the FWIW department, Silent Spring came about as a result of a relatively small chemical spill in Austin, Texas. The flow went down Waller Creek, through the UT campus and the center of downtown, and into the Colorado River. Killed fish all the way to the Gulf.

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

I still don't understand why you have a problem with the "entire concept of NEPA." This act, btw, for those who don't follow these things, requires the federal government to take the environmental impacts of its actions into account. It doesn't even require that the government avoid environmental impacts, just that they disclose and consider them. Now, that's one flawed concept...

[Desertrat]

I don't have a problem with the concept. I don't see how my original phrasing gave that impression. As I've said, I was a strong supporter of the concept, and still am.

Au 'voir for a few days. Travelling again...

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

Now I think you're just having me on.

I dunno. No matter what I've ever done to try to affect any governmental actions, the trend remains away from serious listening to the citizenry except during times of major national outcry. (This SCOTUS decision on eminent domain comes to mind as the most recent; the very concept of the NEPA is another.)

[mactastic]

Have fun on the road. Hopefully you can explain how one can be for the very concept of NEPA after they were against it when you come back. Or before they were against it. However it works.

[Desertrat]

Quoting me, "...the trend remains away from serious listening to the citizenry except during times of major national outcry. (This SCOTUS decision on eminent domain comes to mind as the most recent; the very concept of the NEPA is another.)"

Major national outcries: This Eminent-Domain SCOTUS decision. Concept of NEPA.

The concept of protecting the environment came from public outcry, okay? That's what happened. Enough folks raised enough Hell with Congress to get that body to look at the environment as something other than industry's cash cow. Between support from emotional reasons and support from scientific reasoning, the pressures finally caused support in the House and the Senate. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 was introduced. It was argued over and put into final form and was passed by Congress. It was signed by Nixon in (IIRC) 1972.

Is THAT clear enough?

'Rat