<p>My fondest wish is for the Dems to continue to drag their feet on domestic oil production. In an election season where everything is stacked against the Republicans, Harry and Nancy seem to be coming through with an early Christmas gift for the GOP. Dumb and Dumber in action again.</p>
<p>^I didn’t mean you… I meant your brethren in power. What you or I think amounts to a pack of peanuts.</p>
<p>
Agreed.</p>
<p>Energy is the only thing that McCain has going for him. Well, and he is also white.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cool. That means that at least some of our hard earned cash is helping fighting a good cause. This news makes the $4 dollars per gallon more palatable. </p>
<p>;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t be so critical! Didn’t you not like the fantastic duo’s plan to save America … that famous Marshall Plan for the 21st century they unveiled in a rebuttal to a presidential State of the Union a few years ago? </p>
<p>So many great things have come out of Congress since they assumed its leadership. Here’s the list: </p>
<p>1.
2.
3.
4.</p>
<p>Iloveagoodbrew:</p>
<p>I knew you did not mean me personally. But I also think that Democrats in power are not all fools (though I’ve thought that about Pelosi since the 1980s). Stupidity is pretty much even divided among the two parties.</p>
<p>Xiggi, why so cynical? Don’t you realize that all the hot air generated recently in the halls of Congress, and all the friction from all the dragging of feet while avoiding progress on ANY issue can be used as an alternative energy source? </p>
<p>Probably more BTUs generated that way in that place duuring the last two years than in all the sugar ethanol Brazil ever produced! :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That illustrates the entire debate about ethanol. You should not expect our politicians to support many measures that are contrarian to the all powerful agricultural lobby, or contrary to “good guys” such as ADM. </p>
<p>Despite all the criticism hurled at the biofuels, we should not forget that there are people who have gotten EXTREMELY rich by selling commodities to the maximum the market could bear. Those are the same people who compain when times are tough and expect subsidies and handouts. When the money is rolling in, the same group will not hesitate to remain the price gougers they have always been.</p>
<p>The rebuttal to “If you paid me enough” is that we NEVER pay the farmers enough, at least according to what they want us to know. This latest ethanol boondoggle has been --and still is-- a strange combination of massive and undeserved handouts to farmers and corporate welfare.</p>
<p>The only good news is that the technologies that will bring changes among the usual suppliers of commodities are not too far away. Sooner or later the fat farmers who have exploited the corn markets will face the elimination of the protective tarriffs and will have to revert to exploiting the foodstuff market. Could not happen to nicer people than the farmers’ lobby and ADM!</p>
<p>^Agree!
And we should also get rid of subsidies to oild companies.</p>
<p>[Profit</a> Soars at Exxon Mobil](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/28/AR2005072802085.html]Profit”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/28/AR2005072802085.html)</p>
<p>We need to cut the subsidies to farmers! ADM has one of the largest lobby groups up in Washington. GE a “green” provider even larger!</p>
<p>Wish we could turn all the BS in Washingto into fuel for our cars! lol</p>
<p>Absolutely, Marite! It would be nice to see a gradual reduction of the long-term subsidies that have benefitted tremendously the fossil fuel industry and a migration to incentives designed to increase the **production ** and the consumption of alternative energy. </p>
<p>I do not view the oil and gas industry as the devil, but it would be nice to see a more level playing field. </p>
<p>Of course, after being called cyncial a while ago, I should label myself … utterly naive as it won’t happen any time soon.</p>
<p>^^ Agree on all counts. Ain’t gonna happen.</p>
<p>What oil subsidies are you referring to?</p>
<p>Marite, I though something was weird when I saw the picture of Lee Raymond in the story you linked to. As we know, the “nicest” man in the oil industry left a while ago.</p>
<p>Here’s a link to today’s story:</p>
<p>[BBC</a> NEWS | Business | Another record profit for Exxon](<a href=“http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7535787.stm]BBC”>BBC NEWS | Business | Another record profit for Exxon)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s interesting to compare your link with the 2008 one. And somewhat amusing to read about the … disappointed investors. Leaving on the table a billion here or a billion there, and pretty soon, we might be talking about serious money!</p>
<p>So I ask again what are the oil subsidies you are referring to?</p>
<p>Amom, I’d like to suggest to google “subsidies to oil industry” and read different analyses about the scope and impact of subsidies. You may enjoy comparing what the “cleantech industry” writes and what, say, the Cato Institute comes up with. </p>
<p>It’s not the most exciting reading!</p>
<p>Of course “cleantech industry” is biased against Oil companies. Oil campanies do not get subsidies like the “green” or “alternative” energy companies get.</p>
<p>ADM, GE and other major lobbyists have a vested interest in pushing alternative energy. The problem is that some of the alternatives are not that viable, and have prevented the research needed to find real solutions.</p>
<p>Here may be a solution by Venter:</p>
<p>[Zakaria:</a> Craig Venter’s Planet-Saving Bacterium | Newsweek Future Of Energy | Newsweek.com](<a href=“http://www.newsweek.com/id/140066]Zakaria:”>Zakaria: Craig Venter's Planet-Saving Bacterium)</p>
<p>You see, Amom2, it’s always better to draw your own conclusions. The reality is that it really does not matter if you and I believe the oil industry gets subsidies. I believe they do; you believe the “green” energy receives more. And that is … OK! </p>
<p>It does not matter because our subsidies --or incentives-- should be spent on supporting what IS working. If Craig Venter believes he has the solution as he can create the 4th generation fuel, that is wonderful. Let’s provide plenty of capital when his product is ready and let’s make sure we pay a VERY reasonable amount for each gallon he produces. Someone such as Venter should not have any problem raising a few billions to sink in his new project since he has done the same with his genome project. Let him and his investors measure the risk and measure the applicability to the marketplace. </p>
<p>The same theory should apply to all new energy sources. Let’s the private sector take care oif the RD but support the production of existing technologies that do work by making sure we DO account for ALL costs, including the environmental costs that have been buried for generations. How expensive is coal energy and nuclear when factoring the ENTIRE infrastucture and future decommissioning costs? Is it hard to figure the costs of Nox, Sox, and other pollutants? Not hard at all! </p>
<p>We do not need an energy revolution, but we surely need an energy evolution as we start rewarding non-pollutant and renewable sources of energy. The objective is not the elimination of certain industries but a path to a better balance that will allow us to protect the finite non-renewable sources by paying a fair price for them and … pay a similar price to new sources. That is what a level playing field means. </p>
<p>In such a world Exxon and BP will remain dominant players, for no better reason that they could use their astronomic profits to purchase the most promising technologies at the current bargain prices. </p>
<p>As I wrote, the oil and gas companies are not the devil. The devils have been our generations of politicians that have lacked the courage and the vision to seek to implement equitable policies.</p>
<p>Oil companies are not receiving subsidies like the “green” or “alternative” or your “cleantech industry” people. </p>
<p>BTW, Exxon does invest money in alternative energy!</p>