Bush has his Carter moment

[Prodigal Son]

I seem to recall Darth Cheney saying something about how conservation was great personal virture but poor public policy.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/27/busin ... r=homepage

To Conserve Gas, President Calls for Less Driving

By DAVID LEONHARDT, JAD MOUAWAD and DAVID E. SANGER
Published: September 27, 2005

With fears mounting that high energy costs will crimp economic growth, President Bush called on Americans yesterday to conserve gasoline by driving less. He also issued a directive for all federal agencies to cut their own energy use and to encourage employees to use public transportation.

We can all pitch in," Mr. Bush said. "People just need to recognize that the storms have caused disruption," he added, and that if Americans are able to avoid going "on a trip that's not essential, that would be helpful."

Mr. Bush promised to dip further into the government's petroleum reserve, if necessary, and to continue relaxing environmental and transportation rules in an effort to get more gasoline flowing.

On Capitol Hill, senior Republicans called for new legislation that they said would lower energy costs by increasing supply and expanding oil refining capacity over the long run.

Even though Hurricane Rita caused much less damage to the oil industry than feared, the two recent hurricanes have disrupted production in the Gulf of Mexico enough to ensure that Americans are facing a winter of sharply higher energy costs. The price of natural gas, which most families use to heat their homes, has climbed even more than the price of gasoline recently.

Households are on pace to spend an average of $4,500 on energy this year, up about $500 from last year and $900 more than in 2003, according to Global Insight, a research firm.

Mr. Bush's comments, while similar to remarks he made shortly after the disruption from Hurricane Katrina pushed gasoline prices sharply higher, were particularly notable because the administration has long emphasized new production over conservation. It has also opted not to impose higher mileage standards on automakers.

In 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney said, "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it cannot be the basis of a sound energy policy." Also that year, Ari Fleischer, then Mr. Bush's press secretary, responded to a question about reducing American energy consumption by saying "that's a big no."

"The president believes that it's an American way of life," Mr. Fleischer said.

Mr. Bush, speaking yesterday after he was briefed at the Energy Department, did not use the dour tone or cardigan-wearing imagery that proved politically deadly for Jimmy Carter during the oil crisis of the 1970's. Nor did Mr. Bush propose new policies to encourage conservation. But he was more explicit than in the past that Americans should cut back.

Oil companies spent much of yesterday assessing the damage from Hurricane Rita, which seemed to spare many oil and gas facilities. Still, the gulf's entire oil output and about four-fifths of its natural gas production remained shut yesterday, less than a month after Katrina left the industry stretched thin.

The Gulf of Mexico produces about 7 percent of the oil consumed in the United States and provides 16 percent of the nation's natural gas.

About half of the 16 refineries that were forced to shut by Hurricane Rita have said they plan to restart production soon. But delays in refining pushed the average price of gasoline up again for the first time since Labor Day, to $2.80 a gallon for regular gasoline, according to AAA.

Crude oil prices also rose yesterday on the New York Mercantile Exchange, closing up 2.5 percent, to $65.82 a barrel. Natural gas futures rose 12 cents, to $12.44 a thousand cubic feet.

"We've been in a chronic situation here where supplies have not really caught up with demand," said Dave Costello, an analyst at the Energy Information Administration.

In response to higher energy costs, households are likely to spend less on restaurant meals, clothing and other items. That would slow economic growth in coming months, but economists predicted that other forces - like a continuing housing boom and rising corporate investments in factories and equipment - would keep the economy growing.

"I don't think we're talking about a recession or a near recession," said Joshua Shapiro, the chief United States economist at MFR, a research company in New York. "I think we're talking about growth that is slower than people expected."

Households are now spending about $550 billion a year on energy, up by about $150 billion since the start of last year, according to Global Insight. Over the course of an entire year, the increase would be equal to almost 2 percent of overall consumer spending.

Energy costs are likely to be a particular burden on low- and middle-income households, whose income growth has barely matched inflation over the last few years. Wealthier households have done better, government data show, and have helped keep economic growth healthy with spending on second homes, new vehicles and the like.

Although more forecasters, including Federal Reserve officials, remain optimistic, some say that the spike in energy costs could lead to something of a tipping point for consumers. Families have already begun saving less money in response to higher energy costs, and they might eventually decide to rethink other parts of their budget.

"The best leading indicator of consumer spending is real average hourly earnings," which have been hurt by higher energy costs, said Joseph H. Ellis, a former Goldman Sachs partner and the author of a forthcoming book on the business cycle. "I think we're heading into a very difficult 2006."

In Washington, two House committees are expected to consider proposals this week that have been blocked in the past by environmental objections. Beyond making it easier to build new refineries, one proposal would allow states to opt out of Congressional bans on coastal oil drilling, and another would allow drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which has been controversial for years.

"Families who are paying more than $3 for a gallon of gasoline cannot afford to watch Congress block more clean U.S. energy production while they suffer," said Representative Richard Pombo, Republican of California and chairman of the Resources Committee.

The oil and gas industry supported the moves. John B. Walker, chairman of the Independent Petroleum Association of American, said areas now off limits offshore and in Alaska "could supply our nation with more than 100 years of natural gas - and save U.S. consumers upward of $500 billion."

Environmental groups said drilling advocates were trying to take advantage of anxiety from the storms and rising gasoline prices to push proposals that did not survive in the recently passed energy bill.

"It is kind of sad," said Kevin Curtis, legislative director at the National Environmental Trust. "There is nothing here that helps the consumer at the gas pump short term."

While attention has been focused on gasoline prices, the spike in natural gas prices has the potential to pose a bigger economic threat.

Households that use natural gas will pay an average $1,130 to heat their homes this winter, an increase of almost $400, according to federal government estimates. The price of natural gas in futures markets has more than doubled since 2000 and is six times what it was throughout the 1990's.

[Tarkan]

The government has only limited ability to affect the price of gasoline.

The biggest, immediate impact, would be to repeal the Federal gas tax. It's a wopping 18.4 cents per gallon.

Almost everything else would have to be done at the state and local level or has a significant lag time built in.

The Federal government could also:
- open up ANWR and offshore drilling, but this has been aggressively blocked by the "environmental" caucus & lobby, and backed up by lawsuits.
- invade and take over Saudi Arabia or Iran, but this would be frowned upon by most other nations.
- undermine the East Asian economies, particularly China, so they undergo a recession and their energy demand falls. Again, probably frowned upon by other nations.

A big factor in the price of gasoline is increasing consumption and declining refinery capacity + more stringent EPA & state emission and gas blend regulations. The Fed could step in with the EPA and ease some restrictions, but this wouldn't help California for example, which has really strict state regulations.

No new refineries have been built in 30 years. Two factors the NIMBY factor, and the lawsuit factor. Again, the environmental lobby has sued to prevent building new refineries. The US gasoline supply chain is built around importing crude and refining it, and would have to be restructured somewhat to accept large amounts of refined product. This is largely the job of private industry. A better, cheaper solution (in the long term) would probably be to rebuild our capacity.

The Federal government could also try the carot and stick approach, but the transportation component of our energy consumption is about half of the total, and a significant portion of that fraction has a static demand (agriculture, transportation of goods). We could go from long haul freight truck drivers to trains for some goods, but again, that requires modifying the supply chain and delivery schedules for the whole economy, which throws JIT methodologies out the window.

The reality is, there are no quick fixes. The market will adjust. That means in the short run that individuals will either cut back on their consumption of gas, or, ultimately, something else.

[Prodigal Son]

The government has only limited ability to affect the price of gasoline.

I agree. There are larger forces at work in this particular market.

The biggest, immediate impact, would be to repeal the Federal gas tax. It's a wopping 18.4 cents per gallon.

Which would be counterproductive. Eliminating the gas tax would simply make gas cheaper, therefore further increase demand with no corresponding increase in efficiency, and therfore quickly lead to the same problem of a supply/demand imbalance we have now.

This solution simply sidesteps the problem in the US which is an inefficient energy system. If you are so keen on allowing the "free market" to work you might also add in the elimination oil and gas subsidies/tax breaks too. Here is a good run down on them:

http://www.taxpayer.net/energy/pdf/hous ... arison.pdf

Almost everything else would have to be done at the state and local level or has a significant lag time built in.

The Federal government could also:
- open up ANWR and offshore drilling, but this has been aggressively blocked by the "environmental" caucus & lobby, and backed up by lawsuits.

Which, of course, is disingenious. It's a sop to the oil companies that does not significantly affect the basic problem of demand outstripping supply. The ANWR oil is a mere drop in the oil bucket. It is not a solution to the long-term oil problem.

ANWR could be drilled in, however, if the oil firms were simply required to compensate us by purchasing wilderness area somewhere else in Alaska and then handing it over to the federal government or a privately-run wilderness-protection group, with the latter being preferred.

- invade and take over Saudi Arabia or Iran, but this would be frowned upon by most other nations.

You're joking right? Will you be signing up for the armed services then, Herr Tarkan? Iraq oil is clearly, clearly gushing into the market under a US occupation.

Here's that website again in case you missed it:

www.goarmy.com

But, of course, your solution is simply passing the cost onto others -- military families and taxpayers in another, more "patriotic" guise.

- undermine the East Asian economies, particularly China, so they undergo a recession and their energy demand falls. Again, probably frowned upon by other nations.

www.goarmy.com

A big factor in the price of gasoline is increasing consumption and declining refinery capacity + more stringent EPA & state emission and gas blend regulations. The Fed could step in with the EPA and ease some restrictions, but this wouldn't help California for example, which has really strict state regulations.

Again, this is merely a temporary solution, like overlooking terminal cancer by focusing on a hangnail. Plus, it simply uses the environment as an unpriced dumping ground for human wastes. How would you compensate the individuals harmed by loosening environmental restrictions?

Unless you don't care, as many on the rapture right don't.

No new refineries have been built in 30 years. Two factors the NIMBY factor, and the lawsuit factor. Again, the environmental lobby has sued to prevent building new refineries.

I thought Tarkan was the "power to the people" guy who railed against unelected judges trumping the power of the people. So, now NIMBY (not in my back yard) voters are evil obstacles to the proper functioning of a market. Typical libertarian nonsense -- freedom and police protection for when it benefits me, not when it benefits you.

If more refineries was the solution, which it isn't, then how do you propose compensating the people damaged by the loosened environmental regulations? Or is this simply not something you concern yourself with since you have enough wealth to purchase your way out of a contaminated community anyway?

The US gasoline supply chain is built around importing crude and refining it, and would have to be restructured somewhat to accept large amounts of refined product. This is largely the job of private industry. A better, cheaper solution (in the long term) would probably be to rebuild our capacity.

Which, again, is merely dodging the issue. Gasoline prices were high before the hurricanes hit due to the underlying increase in the price of a barrel of oil. This increase, in turn, reflects a narrowing of margin between worldwide demand for oil and worldwide supply of oil. The volatility in energy prices reflects this underlying problem.

The unmentioned elephant sitting in the room is this basic, growing imbalance. Barring a dramatic increase in the supply of cheap oil, a problematic proposition, curbing demand through increasing efficiency is really the only way to get prices under control. As demand is very inelastic, large prices increase will have to occur in order to get consumer and firms to rethink their energy choices.

The Federal government could also try the carot and stick approach, but the transportation component of our energy consumption is about half of the total, and a significant portion of that fraction has a static demand (agriculture, transportation of goods). We could go from long haul freight truck drivers to trains for some goods, but again, that requires modifying the supply chain and delivery schedules for the whole economy, which throws JIT methodologies out the window.

Which is why long-term high prices are the solution, not the problem. People will adjust, but it will take pain to do so.

The reality is, there are no quick fixes. The market will adjust. That means in the short run that individuals will either cut back on their consumption of gas, or, ultimately, something else.

Which is why current policy is counterproductive. The whole Bush policy is massive social engineering at the behest of organized economic lobbies to prevent this long-term transition to "something else" from taking place. It passes the cost of our policies onto the environment, which doesn't vote and largely isn't priced, and onto the taxpayer, in the guise of a counterproductive foreign policy and the military budget required to support that foreign policy.

Whatever else I may say about you I consider you to be a smart guy. I'm just surprised you can't see how the political system really works or, if you do, you simply refuse to admit that conservative ideology is merely, like liberal ideology, a mask worn by organized political lobbies to hide what is in fact raw self-interest.

It's no surprise you support your plan. You don't pay the cost of military service, get tax breaks to avoid the military tax burden, and can use your own wealth to purchase your way out of communities damaged by weak environmental regulation. It's really a win-win for you.

[el3so]

- undermine the East Asian economies, particularly China, so they undergo a recession and their energy demand falls.

which IMO ranks just below "creating gold out of mud" on the list of the 10 least feasable things

[Buzzsaw]

This is why the President has pushed since his election for the passing of a National Energy Policy initiative. Alas, it has not come to be. In theory, this would aid in increasing capacity, alternative sources, and environmental conservation.

But what we saw the last week was the marketplace nicely allocating a shortage through a sharp but temporary spike in prices.

Consumers bellyache when they have to pay more. And they get suspicious they are getting jammed. Mostly, people just don't like to spend more than what they are used to.

[Prodigal Son]

National Energy Policy

Isn't that what the Congress passed some time ago? I believe John McCain called it the "no lobbyist left behind" bill.

[Buzzsaw]

No, that was the Highway Omnibus Bill.

[Prodigal Son]

McCain on the 2003 Energy Bill:

http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuse ... nt_id=1187

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCAIN ON THE ENERGY BILL
For Immediate Release
Wednesday, Nov 19, 2003

Mr. President, I think this legislation is very timely because if we pass it, Thanksgiving will come early for the Washington special interests. The American public will be presented with an enormous turkey stuffed with their tax dollars. Tell your constituents to save their holiday Turkey carcasses because this farsighted bill even provides subsidies for carcasses used as biomass to generate energy.

We cannot discuss the bill without looking at the fiscal condition of the United States of America today. According to recent reports, Government spending, thanks to the Congress, grew at 12 percent. We are looking at a half a trillion budget deficit next year. We have gone from a $5 trillion surplus over the last few years to a multitrillion-dollar deficit. So what do we do? We are passing a bill that will increase the deficit by at least somewhere around $24 billion.

By the way, I am really sorry we have not gotten the bill. I understand it is 1,200 to 1,600 pages long. Of course, we are considering it without even having a chance to observe it, but it is printed in the RECORD. I imagine the RECORD is pretty big.

Adding to this feast, this bill also contains the other white meat. Of course, I am referring to pork. I fear for the passage of a 1,200-page, pork-laden bill. The outbreak of Washington trichinosis will be so severe we will be forced to have a field office for the Centers for Disease Control right next to the Capitol. I am not saying this will not generate some energy, not at all. It will fill the coffers of oil and gas corporations, propel corporate interests, and boost the deficit into the stratosphere.

Indeed, I have stated on several occasions the name of this bill should be the ``Leave No Lobbyist Behind Act of 2003.'' Given the magnitude of the largess offered in this bill, I hardly know where to begin. I feel somewhat like a mosquito in a nudist colony. I hardly know where to begin.

At a time when it is crucial for our national security and economic welfare that we pursue a new course toward energy independence and global environmental protection, the provisions in this bill take exactly the wrong direction: increasing our dependence on conventional fuels; increasing environmental degradation; increasing our energy use; increasing our national debt; and diminishing protection for consumers and public health.

Let's start at the top of the corporate subsidy heap. We have the biggest increase in corn and cash this Congress has ever seen, doubling the national ethanol mandate. A doubling. Gasohol production is the worst subsidy-laden energy use ever perpetrated on the American public, and it starts with sweet corn. Ten percent of the corn grown in this country is used to produce ethanol. Corn producers, like producers of other major crops, receive farm income and price supports. Let me remind my colleagues in the 107th Congress this body passed a farm bill which appropriated more than $26 billion in direct assistance to corn growers over 6 years. That is an average of $4.3 billion in direct subsidies each year just to corn growers. But obviously, they have not gotten enough. But add it up, and we are over $3 per gallon of ethanol.

The cost to consumers does not stop with the production of energy. Environmental costs of subsidized corn results in higher prices for meat, milk, and eggs because about 70 percent of corn grain is fed to livestock. A GAO report concluded, ``ethanol tax incentives have not significantly enhanced United States energy security since it reduced United States gasoline consumption by less than 1 percent.'' So if we double it, maybe we will have less than 2 percent. It takes more energy to make ethanol from grain than the combustion ethanol produces. Seventy percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy actually in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol there is a net energy loss.

The National Academy of Sciences concluded in 2000 that ``the use of commonly available oxygenates in Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) has little impact on improving ozone air quality and has some disadvantages.'' They found that oxygenates can lead to higher nitrous oxide emissions, ``which are more important in determining--ozone levels in some areas.''
Reformulated gasoline, without oxygenates like ethanol, are widely available and are superior to gasohol. California has started a program called the ``Cleaner Burning Gasoline,'' which has better fuel economy and overall efficiency than gasohol.

I believe it was in recognition of this fact that the House and Senate both passed Energy bills that would remove the Clean Air Act requirement to include an oxygenate in reformulated gasoline. But, the overall economic and environmental benefits of no longer requiring an oxygenate is wiped out by the $2 billion ethanol mandate doubling ethanol production in this bill.

Another subsidy for ethanol producers is a partial exemption for the motor fuels excise tax, which is paid to the Highway Trust Fund. Presently, corn-to-gasohol producers take a $.052 per gallon exemption from the $.18 per gallon excise tax fuel producers are required to pay into the Highway Trust Fund.

According to a recent General Accounting Office study, between 1979-2000, this exemption has cost the Highway Trust Fund between $7.5 and $11.2 billion.

While a tax credit in this bill, called the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit Act of 2003, attempts to change this trend, it merely provides the option for gasohol producers to pay the entire $.18 per gallon excise tax to the Highway Trust Fund, and claim a $.052 per gallon credit on their income tax. The credit would come from general treasury funds, and leave the Highway Trust Fund income in place, most blenders will continue to take the exemption, which is an immediate discount, rather than switching to the credit. This is a useless provision which won't actually bolster the Highway Trust Fund, or the U.S. Treasury. In fact, with doubled ethanol usage, the Federal government stands to lose even more in fuel tax revenue in the upcoming years.

The national ethanol consumption in 2002 was 2.1 billion gallons. Multiply that by 52 cents per gallon, and you see how much revenue the highway trust fund has lost in excise tax in this past year alone. About $1.1 billion. How much more, then, of taxpayer funds, will be given back to the ethanol producers, as ethanol production and consumption doubles? The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the ethanol mandate will cost $2 billion over the next 5 years.

For decades the largest ethanol producer has been Archer Daniels Midland, producer of more than one-third of all ethanol in 2002, and whose nearest competitor has the capacity to produce one-tenth of ADM's capacity.

The excise tax exemption from ethanol has been estimated to account for more than $10 billion in subsidies to ADM--one corporation with $10 billion in subsidies--from 1980 to the late 1990s. In fact, it has been estimated that every dollar in profits earned by Archer Daniels Midland costs the taxpayers $30.

Speaking of highly objectionable fuel additives, I must join my colleagues who have spoken against the MTBE liability waiver.

Mr. President, it is an outrage to see a product liability waiver for producers of MTBE retroactive to September 5, 2003. This nullifies the lawsuits against MTBE producers that were filed after September 5, such as the case last year in the Superior Court in California, where a jury found that MTBE was a defective product and resulted in a settlement in which MTBE producers agreed to pay more than $50 million to clean up MTBE-contaminated water supplies.

Who is going to pay to clean it up now? This provision to shield MTBE producers from product liability could, according to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, cost taxpayers--taxpayers, not industry--$29 billion to clean up contaminated ground and surface water.

In 1998, the U.S. Geological Survey conducted an MTBE survey of water wells in industrial areas, commercial areas, residential areas, and mixed urban areas nationwide, and also estimated that cleaning up the MTBE-contaminated sites in soil and water nationwide is approximately $29 billion.

Just when you believe this bill cannot get any worse, it does.
Mr. President, $800 million--I usually go through these bills, and we find pork in the hundreds of millions, sometimes billions. This exceeds all of my past experiences. Mr. President, $800 million for a loan guarantee to subsidize the creation of a brandnew polluting, coal gasification plant in an economically depressed area of Minnesota. This new company, Excelsior Energy, was formed by lobbyists and executives with ties to a company that filed for bankruptcy after amassing a $9.2 billion debt and being fined $25 million for market manipulation.

This brand new giveaway, which was in neither the House nor Senate-passed Energy bills, is estimated to cost between $2 billion to $3 billion. While this technology turns coal into a synthetic gas that can be combusted more efficiently, coal plants continue to be a leading source of global warming and should not be subsidized with scarce taxpayer dollars. Further, this $800 million loan guarantee does not require Excelsior Energy to meet any concrete job creation goals or standards. In a time of $400 billion annual budget deficits, why should U.S. taxpayers cover the cost of a new plant that will not even guarantee jobs? Minnesota already has a powerplant owned by Exel Energy. Now they need Excelsior Energy, a new plant burning more carbon?

An amendment was added Monday night--Monday night--to authorize the lignite coal-fired electrical generating plant, which would employ clean coal technology to provide energy for a rapidly growing region. This amendment was not included in either the House or Senate passed energy bills.

Another provision that we understand was inserted at the eleventh hour, and was never reviewed by either the House or the Senate, would suspend important environmental reviews to facilitate the construction of uranium processing facilities in New Mexico by the consortium, Louisiana Energy Services. A Time magazine article that appeared earlier this year raised serious questions about one of the consortium members, which it characterized as ``a European consortium linked to leaks of enrichment technology to, yes, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea--as well as to Pakistan.'' The article in Time magazine quotes a high-level U.S. nuclear security administrator as saying``to have this company operating in the U.S. after it was the source of sensitive technology reaching foreign powers does raise serious concerns.''

I want to add, I do not know if that is true or not. I do not know if the Time magazine story is true or not. We do not know because we never had any scrutiny of the amendment. But I think it is a serious issue. I do not know.
In addition to possible security concerns suggested by the time article, this extraordinary rider raises critical environmental concerns.
Even though I understand that both Tennessee and Louisiana have rejected this facility, the Energy bill rider shortcuts the NEPA process and meaningful judicial review of the Environmental Impact Statement, for the construction of this facility in New Mexico. To add insult to injury, the provision further requires the Government to acquire the waste and dispose of it for a price that is possibly significantly less than the cost.
I ask unanimous consent the Time magazine article be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[From Time Magazine, Jan. 21, 2003]
Nukes: To Pyongyang From Nashville?
BACKERS OF A PROPOSED URANIUM ENRICHMENT PLANT HAVE A BAD HISTORY WITH KEEPING SECRETS
(By Adam Zagorin)
Is President Bush's ``axis of evil'' campaign about to be undermined in his own backyard? A proposed uranium enrichment facility planned in Hartsville, Tenn. (pop. 2,395) raises just that question. One of the plant's principle backers is URENCO, a European consortium linked to leaks of enrichment technology to, yes, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea--as well as to Pakistan.

Sources tell TIME that senior Bush appointees, upset by the ongoing crisis with North Korea, have held detailed discussions in recent days on the need to stop leaks of nuclear technology to rogue states. ``To have this company operate in the U.S. after it was the source of sensitive technology reaching foreign powers does raise serious concerns,'' a high-level U.S. nuclear security administrator told TIME, the first public comment by a Federal official on the proposed plant's ownership. ``The national security community or the new Homeland Security Department will need to look at this.''

Concerns about URENCO first emerged more than 10 years ago when thousands of centrifuge parts, based on URENCO designs, were discovered by U.N. inspectors in Iraq after the Gulf War. A one-time URENCO scientist, known as the ``father'' of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, is said to have taken URENCO centrifuge blueprints and information on the company's suppliers to his homeland, later passing similar sensitive material to North Korea and Iran.

The company that wants to build the new Tennessee enrichment plant is called Louisiana Energy Services. A consortium of U.S. and foreign companies in which URENCO has a major financial role, LES insists that the link between URENCO and nuclear proliferation is ``long ago and far-fetched at this point.'' URENCO itself has denied authorizing leaks of technology to rogue states.

The only previous attempt by LES to build an enrichment plant involved a multi-year effort in the 1990's targeting a small town in Louisiana. Closed Congressional hearings on Iraqi attempts to acquire nuclear weapons were held not long before, and delved into URENCO's record. Subsequently, powerful Michigan Democrat JOHN DINGELL raised concerns that the LES plant in Louisiana might violate provisions governing the movement of classified technology from foreign countries under the Federal Atomic Energy Act. That issue was never resolved, but LES gave up attempts to build the Louisiana facility amid controversy over its impact on nearby African-American residents.

With its latest effort in Tennessee, LES seems especially anxious to avoid a reprise of those controversies. In an unusual move, LES has asked for a greenlight from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission without the usual public comment on various environmental, safety and security issues. But groups like the Sierra Club and the National Resources Defense Council contend that this will simply, ``reduce the ..... licensing procedure to a flimsy rubber stamp.'' LES plans to file its 3,000 page license application with the Federal government by January 30, to be followed by a review process that could take at least a year.

Also controversial are unanswered questions about the disposal of the Tennessee plant's radioactive waste. Officials in Tennessee have reached a tentative agreement with LES to cap the amount of waste and, last week, the company announced that the material would not stay in Tennessee permanently. But it offered no details as to where the waste might be transferred, a process that can be subject to complex federal licensing procedures.

So far few Tennessee politicians have taken a position on the new enrichment plant. That includes Sen. BILL FRIST, the new Senate Majority Leader, who has remained neutral on the proposed plant in his home state. But he plans to follow the debate ``very closely,'' says an aide (end article).

There are also four proposals known as green bonds that will cost taxpayers $227 million to finance approximately $2 billion in private bonds. One of my favorite green bond proposals is a $150 million riverfront area in Shreveport, LA. This riverwalk has about 50 stores, a movie theater, and a bowling alley. One of the new tenants in this Louisiana riverwalk is a Hooters restaurant. Yes, my friends, an Energy bill subsidizing Hooters and polluters, probably giving new meaning to the phrase ``budget busters.'' Although I am sure there is a great deal of energy expended at Hooters, I have never been present. Perhaps something has been missing in my life.

This bill was developed in a secret, exclusive, partisan process, but it is no secret anymore. In the last few days, editorials have appeared in papers throughout the country. Here are a few choice words from various papers.

One thing that is worthy of note, Mr. President, is that for the first time in my memory, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal both editorialize strongly against this bill. It is on the rarest of occasions that the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times--the Wall Street Journal: ``The Grassley Rain Forest Act,'' which refers to: ``Special applause goes to Senator Chuck Grassley for grabbing millions to build an indoor rain forest and a million-gallon aquarium in lush, tropical Iowa. ''

Of course, the New York Times editorial, titled ``A Shortage of Energy,'' describes how the bill is a very serious one. Today China's message on energy--where it goes into a report from China--is that the Chinese are worried about their increasing reliance on foreign oil. The difference is, the Chinese are ready to do something about it, where Congress is not. Indeed, loopholes in the Energy bill could make American cars less efficient than they are. While the Chinese say their main concern is oil dependency, not global warming, more efficient cars should help on that, too. And where are our American leaders? Feathering nests rather than imposing discipline on the Nation's fuel use.

I will not go through all of the editorials that I have seen, but it is overwhelming. Everybody who has looked at this bill realizes that it is a terrible mistake. It seems to me that this is the result of a broken process, a process that is conducted behind closed doors.

I still do not have the bill in front of me. None of us do. I guess it is printed in the RECORD. I understand, because it is 1,200 pages long, the RECORD might be long.

There was very little, if any, consultation with other Members of the Senate. My understanding is the Democratic side was cut out of it completely. And we are given a few short hours to examine a 1,200-page ``Energy bill.''
I want to return to my initial comments. It is serious when we are looking at a $ 1/2 trillion debt next year, when we have growth in the size of Government of 12 percent. What has happened to the Republican Party? What has happened to the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution? What has happened to the lockbox where we were going to take your Social Security money and put it into an account with your name on it? Instead, we have a $20 billion and some energy bill loaded with wasteful porkbarrel projects most of us had not either seen or heard of until the last few hours.

I hope we can muster 40 votes--I hope so--because I think we have to restore some kind of fiscal sanity, some kind of environmental sanity to this Nation. This legislative process needs to be fixed.

[Penta]

The only solution is decreasing consumption. You may just have to bear something approaching the fuel costs that people in other countries pay. That would lower US consumption pretty quickly.

Federal gas tax. It's a wopping 18.4 cents per gallon.

Sometimes you do make me laugh, Tarkan. In the UK we pay fuel duty of £0.5019 per litre or £1.90 ($3.35) per US gallon.

[Tarkan]

The only solution is decreasing consumption. You may just have to bear something approaching the fuel costs that people in other countries pay. That would lower US consumption pretty quickly.

Federal gas tax. It's a wopping 18.4 cents per gallon.

Sometimes you do make me laugh, Tarkan. In the UK we pay fuel duty of £0.5019 per litre or £1.90 ($3.35) per US gallon.

Might want to work on your sarcasm detector. 87 octane gas is $2.79 right now where I live. Thus, only 6.6% of the price of gas is affected by the Federal tax, meaning cutting the tax wouldn't do much to help. "Wopping" was the sarcastic modifier.

[Buzzsaw]

The only solution is decreasing consumption. You may just have to bear something approaching the fuel costs that people in other countries pay. That would lower US consumption pretty quickly.

False. Demand for gasoline is almost perfectly price inelastic as there are no adequate substitute goods. That's why everyone is so pissed that gas prices are higher. Because they HAVE to pay.

And when you consider economic and population growth, consumption is, of course, going to go up. This argument is a non-starter and too unsophisticated for consideration. It might make for good chatter over a spliff at a Greenpeace meeting, but in the stark light of reality, it's just silly.

[svizzerams]

The only solution is decreasing consumption. You may just have to bear something approaching the fuel costs that people in other countries pay. That would lower US consumption pretty quickly.

False. Demand for gasoline is almost perfectly price inelastic as there are no adequate substitute goods. That's why everyone is so pissed that gas prices are higher. Because they HAVE to pay.

And when you consider economic and population growth, consumption is, of course, going to go up. This argument is a non-starter and too unsophisticated for consideration. It might make for good chatter over a spliff at a Greenpeace meeting, but in the stark light of reality, it's just silly.

Won't be so silly when the pumps run dry....for good - short term economic concerns aside. Consumers don't HAVE to pay - they can reduce consumption or consider alternatives. It'll be lovely the day when conservation though isn't enough and it'll be just plan deprivation.....remember that civilization is a very thin veneer......

Ramping up for alternatives is the only answer

[nowonmai]

Which, of course, is disingenious.

What does this mean?

Said in the spirit of the black guy in Highlander saying to the cop "What does in-com-pe-tent mean?"

Sometimes even omniexperts fuck up, or maybe just don't know.

Talking about gasoline prices is an unproductive activity. Talking about gasoline smells is much more fun.

[kilroy]

The only solution is decreasing consumption. You may just have to bear something approaching the fuel costs that people in other countries pay. That would lower US consumption pretty quickly.

False. Demand for gasoline is almost perfectly price inelastic as there are no adequate substitute goods. That's why everyone is so pissed that gas prices are higher. Because they HAVE to pay.

And when you consider economic and population growth, consumption is, of course, going to go up. This argument is a non-starter and too unsophisticated for consideration. It might make for good chatter over a spliff at a Greenpeace meeting, but in the stark light of reality, it's just silly.

Won't be so silly when the pumps run dry....for good - short term economic concerns aside. Consumers don't HAVE to pay - they can reduce consumption or consider alternatives. It'll be lovely the day when conservation though isn't enough and it'll be just plan deprivation.....remember that civilization is a very thin veneer......

Ramping up for alternatives is the only answer

you must not have a very strong economics background. because demand for oil is highly inelastic (which means it varies very little due to price), consumption will only increase, due to growing population and economies. this just means that the price will continue to rise until it simply becomes more cost-prohibitive than alternative energy sources. there won't be any peeling back of that 'thin veneer'. eventually alternatives will be cheaper than oil, and people will use them. until then, people's pocket books will just be a little more strained.

[Buzzsaw]

True dat, Kilroy.

My favorite part is how the finger-wagger anti-fossil fuelers like to lecture us about the day the pumps will run dry and all hell will break loose and society will crumble and marriage licenses will be issued for man and cow or whatever. Do they think that they will somehow be immune to the societal consequences of their imaginary mini-armageddon?

Seriously, we'd all love for there to be an alternative energy source. I'm currently developing a vehicle that runs on the excrement I see posted on this very site. I'll be thumbing my noses at all you fags in your 8 mph solar buggies.