Energy Bill Blocked By Republican Fillibuster

Republicans are anti environment, everyone knows this

Unless the Republicans can get a taste they will always veto any energy or health bill.

It figures!

That party is SO much dead meat in 2008.

Will the lazy American electorate get off their butts to change this disgusting congress ????

OIL OIL OIL COAL COAL COAL

I guess you moonbats must not have seen who won the Congressional elections this week otherwise you wouldn't be making all those ignorant comment...oh wait you're moonbats...everything you do and say is ignorant.

Thanks everyone.

Dana not sure what a moonbat is but if you think its bad than I guess I am happy to be one:)

Ask yourself the question "do coal and oil represent the future of the US economy and way of life". Answer is no. Now ask yourself why 41 Republican Senators licked Exxon's and Massey Energy's boots today. Answer is because they were paid pretty well to do so, because they lack the imagination to see that the future needs help arriving sometimes, and because they figure anything that Dems favor is just what they are supposed to vote against.

Of course, George would have vetoed it if it had gotten that one more vote to win passage from the Senate. So it really changes nothing- other than giving the american electorate another reason to replace some of those Republicans who are retiring in 2008 with Dems.

Dana is just proviing to be himself. Just like the GOP.

Lori...a moonbat is a slang term for an ultra left wing moron.

Lori you need to join the group moonbats are us .

Welcome .

Don I would be happy to.

If the GOP is anti environement, that must mean Dems are anti food.

As we shift to biofuels we raise the price of foods by diverting the food crops to fuel.

And the Dems will not jump on the opportunity to blast the repubs. How did Lieberman vote?

That was a tax increase that would trickle down to us the consumer. Want more taxes vote Democratic.

What is the rush to biofuels that cost more energy to produce than they save? We have more oil at out fingertips than we can use in 200 years. see my article on "What Oil Shortage?"

Duane you are so off base its not even funny. The reason WHY corn prices are high:

1. A small percentage went for fuel...but corn is a renewable commodity. Oil however is not.

2. We are selling too much of this commodity to places like China...and other countries....they are getting richer we are getting poorer so they have the buying power.

"Want more taxes vote Democratic."

Right. How much have your taxes and your share of the federal debt, which will absolutely fall to you in the form of higher taxes, fallen over the reign of GOP terror since 1981? And, how much has your income risen during that period? How much have your healthcare costs, energy costs, and fuel costs fallen? These are all forms of regression taxation that come about as a direct result of failed neoconomic policies of borrow and spend.

Want less income, higher cost of living, defective government, massive expansion of the government, and endless federal debt? Vote republiCON.





"1. A small percentage went for fuel...but corn is a renewable commodity. Oil however is not.

2. We are selling too much of this commodity to places like China...and other countries....they are getting richer we are getting poorer so they have the buying power."

I'm not that big on ethanol as a major source of fuel, to be honest. It's become far too critical a food supply for us to dick around with it as a fuel, particularly when other plants, including hemp, could be raised specifically for ethanol, and would not crimp our food supply. I read somewhere a few months ago that we're 1-2 bad corn seasons away from famine right now. Take a gander at the labels of food products that you buy and see if you can find any that don't contain some amount of corn or corn product.

We definitely sell a helluva lot of food to other countries, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. The thing that blew my mind a while back was when I learned that the Chinese were selling us poisoned food. I thought "WTF? Why the hell are we buying food from China?"

I'm much more hip on bio diesel, fuel cells, electric vehicles, and hydrogen myself, although ethanol has its place, for sure. The fact is, it's going to take some of all of what we've got, in order to get this country off foreign oil, and eventually off oil altogether.

I'm going to look for the vote list, Joseph S. I want to see how Wonder Woman Diane Feinstein, Dem./California voted. She's the strongest republiCON in the state.

Wait a minute- were there any Dems that voted with the Repulicans against the climate security act or whatever they called it? No, i don't think so.

is ethanol he answer to oil? Not if it is grown from corn, that won't work. If it is grown from cellulosic sources like switchgrass? Maybe.

What is wrong with solar? Solar is more expensive than oil or coal, short term. Long term, it does the job and preserves our atmosphere. It's only money. what is wrong with sustainability, nothing long term.

I realize that I am arguing against myself here. i just posted a book review wherein I argued that eco-nuts need to realize that it's also about MONEY. Well fine- yeah it's true. but cant we build solar panel structures that pay off in 20 years for example? Why do they have to pay off in 3 years, that's not realistic.

And here's the thing about coal. it pays off in one year. And then in 100 years, your great grandkids have to leave their home in south Florida because it is flooded out by rising sea level. Is that a bargain?

Moon bats? Bats have a remarkable echo location that helps them see in totall darkness, while the right are kept in the dark and have no way of seeing jack.

Lori, thank you for your article.

Until the Republicans are ousted from the Senate, this country remains in the grip of megacorporatist (my word - I claim it - it is all mine!) special interests. So remember people, in 2008 it doesn't matter who you vote for, as long as it isn't Repbublican!

There was a vote yesterday on the bill, and it passed by a veto-proof majority this time. BUT- it had been stripped of the provision to require utilities to produce 15% of their electricity from renewable sources. The vehicle fuel efficiency requirements were nice, but we should have had those 10 years ago. If we had gotten them back then, the cars being sold today would be more efficient. Since we are ten years late on it, we are going to have to wait years while Detroit re-tools before the first car with improved mileage rolls into of the showroom. It's too little too late. Better than nothing, Okay, but still absurdly out of sync with the size of the problem we face. Ten years from now, I don't expect to be buying a gasoline powered car in the first place. By that time, we should have access to electric battery plug-in cars, and when those come out only an idiot would still want a gasoline car.

Good article, Lori. 10

Current sitting politician's have no motivation for this future issue. They will let their children and grandchildren deal with it; providing any humans are still around in fifty years.
And it's not about taxes. The government has already gutted the military, reduced numerous social service programs, and raised their own pay and benefits. They avoid doing anything about energy independence and oil alternatives simply because there's no money that will flow to their pockets if they do so.

Chris W. - Rumor has it that no one builds cars in Detroit anymore. The re-tooling you refer to would have to take place in the foreign countries that our automotive giants have moved to; or contracted with.

Lori:
--Actually, the percentage of our corn going to ethanol is 25% (and corn is by far the most produced crop in the country) already, which has driven up the price of corn, and as farmers plant corn instead of other crops, the other prices go up as well. As the price of feed goes up, the price of meat and milk goes up. Meanwhile, drought in many parts of the country is putting our ability to produce crops in jeopardy (bad agricultural policies waste more water than all other water consuming practices combined).

--Food prices have been one of the leading causes of inflation around the world lately, and hurts the poor most of all.

--And also, how is exporting bad?

Clark:
--Biodiesel? Vast swaths of rainforest are being destroyed and replanted with palm oil trees to meet Europe's requirement for biodiesel. Is that what you consider environmentally sustainable?

George W:
--Most of the taxes breaks on oil companies that the energy bill has is repealing are for oil drilling/exploration. If near $100/bbl oil isn't enough incentive to drill/explore, nothing is. Little if any of those taxes would be transfered to the consumer.

The biggest problem with the energy bill, according to Bush supporters is that it was trying to repeal the huge volume of corporate welfare given to the oil companies. Mr. Bush was not pleased with that idea and would have vetoed it anyway. We can't have the big oil company profits decrease because they have to pay their own way.

It's ironic in a way. The same people who so detest the slightest help to the truly down and out, even in the form of a temporary hand up during hard times, are the same folks who believe contributing taxpayer money to $50 Million+ executive salaries is just fine.

Carolyn you took the words out of my mouth.

Hmmm....some of those Democrats from Michigan weren't too excited about increased automobile efficiency. Now why is that?

Carl: Well, I'd say for two reasons. The first reason is that Detroit always claims it can't be more fuel efficient. They always manage to do it when they are mandated to. I suspect that the second reason is pressure from big oil. No matter what they say in their ads, big oil is scared to death that some resourceful person or company is going to find a way to actually make an efficient fuel out of something other than oil, or find a way to make cars burn gasoline with extreme efficiency. Either of these would reduce our dependence on their product.

Of course I'm just being cynical. Big oil wants us to be energy independent and all of that.

As far as taxes are concern, it is true Republicans will decrease the tax burden on Americans, but only rich Americans. The Republicans love to make the middle class endure the majority of the tax burden, while making sure the top 3 percent of Americans, that is the elite, pay less and less every year.

As far as our dependency on big oil is concern, sometime back I saw a news segment on the electric car and how the current Administration with big oil kill or at least curtail the electric car. The Bush Administration is indebted to the big oil corporation, for their help in getting them re-elected so it will do anything and everything it can to keep us addicted to oil.

I agree Juan. What I find appalling about all of this is that our elected representatives will fast and loose with our future just so that they get bigger campaign contributions. I guess when you aren't forced to live in the mess you allow to be created, you don't care much about the people who do.

I keep hearing that "Republicans will cut taxes" but has anyone bothered to check out exactly how they do it? They simply spend and spend when there is no tax money to pay for it and run us deeper and deeper into debt. Has anyone ever considered that there are basically only two ways to avoid huge deficits and debts? One is generating more and more money. Ain't gonna happen. The second is to spend within your means.

Why isn't every bill, pork barrel or regular, required to show where the money to do it is coming from? Why isn't this built into the bill as a mandatory offset. You take from Peter then show me Paul's bank balance and tell me how much you're taking from him.

Every program and agency needs to return to zero based budgets to start with. Then every single expenditure should have to be justified by legitimate need and the source of the funds identified. It ain't rocket science.