Note: oil=oil and natural gas
Both my Senators, one of whom, Saxby Chambliss, is running for re-election, are behind the bad policy, bad politics "New Energy Reform Act" of 2008 in the gang of (now) 20. Needless to say, I let Sen. Chambliss know in my reply that should he continue his support of this rottenness, I would not be pulling the lever for him this year. I'll just sit out the GA senate race, I guess.
Marlo Lewis blogs over on NRO's Planet Gore why this is a rotten compromise, and I will add it is rotten politics, and saving the Democrats from themselves. The bill will be vetoed by President Bush, in effect getting NOTHING accomplished, but allowing Pelosi and the Dems to claim they did "something" and in a bi-partisan manner, to boot.
Of course, my senators don't seem to really care that this is a bad idea. Senator Chambliss had the courtesy, at least, to send me the talking points on why this is a good thing. If I were interested in a bi-partisan compromise that might actually get signed into law, and if this bill would bring quick relief, I might favor it as a first step to breaking down some other barriers. But, as Lewis points out, the bill will be vetoed, thus point 1 is no good, and the bill will not being quick relief, because the only areas it makes accessible are >50 miles off-shore. In his reply to me, Sen. Chambliss points out that we can set rigs at 50 and drill inward, but that takes time and will provide no immediate relief, even if it were to happen.
The bill, according to the Institute for Energy Research, most likely will add areas within 50 miles of Alaska's shoreline to the banned list (they are not today) and, it does not provide for revenue sharing with the Feds for those states that would be allowed to drill in the 50-100 mile range (NC, SC, VA, GA). So, little incentive for those states to support drilling offshore. The IER report concludes that this bill will open between 2-4B BBL of oil to exploration, but not the most easily accessible areas, and, makes the comparison that just opening 2000 acres of ANWR would yield 10B BBL of oil nearly immediately. When all is said and done, it looks like after this bill is done, more of the OCS areas will be banned than today.
Senator Isakson, I guess not being up for re-election, saw no need to provide a detailed reply.
Out of respect of the space on this blog, I am not posting Senator Chambliss's reply, nor my reply to him and Sen. Isakson. You'll have to settle for this as a summary.If you want to see those, comment me and I'll put in the comments.
2 comments:
UPDATE:
To his office's credit, Sen. Isakson finally responded to my email, but pretty much with the same pablum that Sen Chambliss did. Anyway, kudos to him, but I support making bipartisan compromises after Jan 21.
Interesting to see the play by the Dems so that they can claim they did "something". It seems kind of silly to even waste time making something like this if it's guaranteed to get vetoed. There's been a lot of nothing going on recently and some of this now seems like flailing because people realize that the jig will soon be up and people want action.
Me thinks we should all just become politicians. I'd love to have a job that I literally do nothing at. Not that we even do anything in the Chair Force.
Post a Comment