Recently, it seems the debates on Capitol Hill make even less sense than usual.
Look closely and you will find that the same politicians who demand more domestic oil production to “relieve pain at the pump”, simultaneously and inconsistently, attack the Obama administration’s efforts to increase fuel economy standards.
Take Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), for example, the chairman of the powerful House Oversight Committee. He’s launched a needless investigation into the administration’s new mileage standards, even though they were negotiated with—not imposed upon—Detroit. Most importantly, Rep. Issa blindly ignores that boosting fuel efficiency is a sure-fire way to lower gas costs for American families.
Energy & Environment
Recently, it seems the debates on Capitol Hill make even less sense than usual.
In last week's State of the Union address, President Obama issued a call to action to Congress to bring him an energy efficiency bill that will help manufacturers eliminate energy waste and give businesses incentives to upgrade their buildings. He promised energy savings of $100 billion over the next decade, with less pollution, more manufacturing, and more jobs - if Congress can enact the right legislation.
What legislation could deliver these benefits?
Let me start by saying that the following ideas all embody what I believe to be the most effective role for government to play in bolstering this industry and creating jobs - creating an environment of enablement, as opposed to purely investment. Tax credits to encourage energy efficiency programs will absolutely spur action. But there are a set of more lasting initiatives the federal government can advance that will encourage businesses to drive and fund these energy efficiency programs without placing burden on taxpayers.
Nearly three decades since the debate over America’s high-level nuclear waste disposal began, the science remains clear that permanent geological
storage of spent fuel is superior to our present quagmire of on-site storage.
Yet in the wake of the Administration’s political blockade of an independent technical evaluation of the repository at Yucca Mountain, the resulting Blue Ribbon Commission found what many of us have long been saying about the failed management of nuclear waste. The Commission’s report correctly advises control of the Nuclear Waste Fund be removed from the purse strings of political ideologues and entrusted to “a new organization dedicated solely to implementing the waste management program” set forth under law.
America is at a crossroads when it comes to determining our energy future.
Armed with new technology and funded by record profits, the oil and gas industry is developing new ways to find supplies: extracting natural gas by fracking; squeezing oil from dirty tar sands; erecting drilling rigs in the most remote places of our earth.
Yet today’s boom in oil and gas production also comes at a time of ever-increasing energy alternatives, from biofuels and electric cars to wind farms and concentrated solar.
As we debate the role of domestic fossil fuel resources in our energy future, there has never been a more important time for
As we enter the year 2012, the battle to win the GOP presidential nomination wages on and 21 debates have come and gone, leaving very few commonalities left between the remaining candidates. There is, however, one thing that they-and all of the American people-can agree on: job creation.
It's been on our minds since 2008, but, Despite the gradual improvements in the U.S. labor market and the drop in the jobless rate to 8.5 percent in December, wrote Dr. Mark Perry, a professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan, in a recent blog post, the payroll employment level of 131.9 million jobs in December is still more than six million jobs below the 137.9 million peak level when the recession started in December 2007.
However, there are three states he said that have now regained all of the jobs lost during the recession: North Dakota, Alaska and Texas.
Why? The people in these states are all benefitting from the thousands of opportunities made available in order to keep up with the abundant production of domestic energy resources, including natural gas.
America has the gas. It's ours, it's clean and it's much less expensive than oil. It just makes sense to expand its use so that the natural gas industry can play an even more vital role in our nation's recovery.
Fortunately, there is legislation before Congress that could add even more fuel to that recovery fire.
Earlier this month I had the opportunity to accompany Speaker John Boehner and a bipartisan group of members of Congress on a trip to Latin America. In addition to discussing trade and economic issues with the leaders of Colombia and Mexico, we also traveled to Brazil to focus on energy policies. Brazil is eager to develop their own offshore energy resources and understands the job and economic benefits that come from energy production. It was not hard to contrast the energy policies of Brazil and the Obama Administration and realize that the United States is missing out on incredible opportunities by continuing to lock-up our resources.
The recent discovery of Brazil’s abundant deepwater offshore oil reserves, which is estimated to contain a combined 58 billion barrels of oil, has made Brazil an attractive business opportunity for American companies scorned by the Obama administration’s job-destroying offshore energy policies. In fact, while in Brazil we met with several U.S. energy companies that are now looking for business in this suddenly natural resources rich country.
On January 18th, Kerri-Ann Jones, Assistant Secretary of the State Department’s Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, spoke to reporters about the administration’s decision to deny the Keystone XL Pipeline.
Over and over again, Assistant Secretary Jones said that there was not enough information to make an adequate decision. It “could not be deemed in the national interest.”
However, it was her response to Andrea Mitchell of NBC News that sums up the administration’s take on the project: “We’re making this decision because of the process.”
This is the same process, however, that led to the 2009 approval of a transnational pipeline between Canada and the United States: “...the addition of crude oil pipeline capacity between Canada and the United States will advance a number of strategic interests in the United States. These included increasing the diversity of available supplies among the US worldwide crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tension in other major oil producing countries and regions….Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States, with which we have free trade agreements which augment the security of this energy supply.”
To say the Obama administration’s approach to energy policy has been a disaster would be giving it too much credit.
Things didn’t get any better this week when President Obama rejected the Keystone XL pipeline, which I believe is a game changer for our energy security. When fully complete, the Keystone pipeline system could transport nearly 1.3 million barrels of oil per day from Alberta and North Dakota to refineries in the Midwest and Gulf Coast.
Three years into his presidency, Barack Obama has severely limited access to both on and off shore oil and gas reserves, pushed the most expensive environmental regulatory agenda in history and sent a half billion dollars of taxpayer money to Solyndra, a now bankrupt solar company.
Americans need jobs. In his rejection of the Keystone Pipeline permit, the president killed approximately 100,000 jobs, and he killed the jobs of the steel workers who would build the 1,700 miles of pipeline in Arkansas. His actions show that he also intends to kill the oil industry.
The Keystone XL pipeline is a 1700-mile, $7 billion non tax-payer funded pipeline which would deliver an additional 700,000 barrels of oil from Canada to refineries in the United States each day. The project would create an immediate 20,000 construction jobs and at least another 130,000 long-term jobs by conservative estimates. The pipeline would also mean less dependence on Hugo Chavez's Venezuelan oil.
With 8.5 percent national unemployment, it is unfathomable that anyone would turn away 130,000 jobs and continue to increase reliance on the resources of foreign nations, but this is exactly what the president is doing. Worse yet, he is doing so to appease special interests. President Obama chose to disregard common-sense recommendations from a panel he appointed and caved to the pressure of environmental groups. It is time the president worried about jobs on Main Street instead of his job at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The president has blatantly shown his disregard for the well-being of the American people.
First and foremost, Keystone XL means energy and fuel for Americans. Just a reminder – we need those things until what are now supplemental energy sources can take over for the base load (fossil fuels). Even the people who came to Washington, DC, to protest Keystone XL, used petroleum products and energy when driving, bussing, or flying to DC. Isn’t that a little hypocritical?
Keystone XL means jobs. It would have meant the immediate creation of at least 20,000 jobs in construction, operation, and surrounding industries. While some people question the accuracy of this number, I just remind them of the original Keystone Pipeline. It was built in the summer of 2010. Its construction was estimated to create around 9,000 jobs, and it created 9,000 jobs. While the U.S. is wallowing in a recession, keeping 20,000 Americans from working isn’t good policy.