Faced with nearly $4 per gallon gasoline, what would members of Virginia's congressional delegation do? Here are the short answers from most of them, followed by my comments in italics.
Rep. Rob Wittman, R-1Yes, increasing energy efficiency is a huge part of the answer. The only problem with Wittman saying this is that he's a hypocrite, having voted against the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008, as well as the Energy Independence and Security Act. All talk, no action apparently.
"Hybrid cars are the technology of the day, but I think there's a lot of room for us to increase the efficiencies. If we can do things to increase efficiencies there, that will take a lot of pressure off demand."
Rep. Thelma Drake, R-2No mention of energy efficiency is no good at all. And "develop our own resources" is simply code for "drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge" and other environmentally sensitive locations. The fact is, the United States will never "drill its way" out of its "oil addiction." With regard to Drake's rhetorical support for renewables, then why did she also vote against the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008, a bill that increased fuel economy standards for automobiles to 35 miles per gallon by 2020 and encouraged energy efficiency in public buildings and lighting? And why did she vote against the "Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act" (CLEAN act)? Hmmmm.
"We all are feeling the effects of higher gas prices. The costs are felt not just at the fuel pump, but at the grocery store. The Congress must act to allow the United States to develop our own resources and invest in alternative sources of energy like wind, solar, and nuclear power for the future."
Rep. Randy Forbes, R-4I completely agree on the Manhattan Project idea. Meanwhile, though, it would be nice if Forbes would stop voting against bills like the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008 and the CLEAN Act (see above; to Forbes' credit, he did vote for the Energy Independence and Security Act.)
"We need a Manhattan Project-style commission of the best and brightest scientists and researchers to develop a viable energy plan that will permanently address the issue of rising gas prices and set us on a path towards energy independence."
Rep. Virgil Goode, R-5Goode has voted against the CLEAN Act and other important clean energy bills. Goode is wrong on drilling in the environmentally vulnerable Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He is wrong about using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for any purpose other than national security. And his call for "market manipulation" is simply feel-good nonsense; in reality, gasoline prices have risen because of rapid oil demand increases around the world the past few years, combined with a nearly vertical supply curve. Finally, biofuels are certainly not the answer anytime soon; in fact, what we've been hearing about in the news recently is the skyrocketing cost of food (not to mention food riots) due in part to displacing a growing percentage of corn and soy production towards biofuels for vehicles. Goode, as usual, is clueless.
"One, we should have been already drilling in Alaska for oil and natural gas in this country. Two, stop putting oil in the strategic petroleum reserve right now. Three, investigate the futures traders to see if there is any market manipulation. Four, continue and emphasize support for alternatives, such as biofuels like switchgrass and canola, which do not adversely impact the food supply."
Rep. Eric Cantor, R-7I've already addressed why drilling in environmentally sensitive areas is not the answer. As to opposing "tax increases on domestic oil exploration," that's simply another way of saying that Cantor wants to continue huge tax BREAKS to ExxonMobil and other Big Oil companies, all of which are making enormous, record prices in the history of mankind. Like Virgil Goode, Eric Cantor is utterly clueless about energy.
"This Congress has failed to adequately develop deep ocean oil and gas resources and has refused to allow energy exploration in (the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge). Congress should also take rapid action to approve tax incentives for alternative energy without tax increases on domestic oil exploration."
Rep. Rick Boucher, D-9With regard to "coal to liquids," I would simply refer you to this paper by the National Resources Defense Council: "Why Liquid Coal Is Not a Viable Option to Move America Beyond Oil." The biggest reason why this is a terrible idea? "Global Warming CO2 Emissions Could Nearly Double With Liquid Coal." Blech.
"I want to create a domestic alternative to petroleum. The best one of those to promote is a liquid fuel derived from coal. Coal is our most abundant natural resource."
Rep. Frank Wolf, R-10: (in a letter to President Bush, April 24)I addressed the Strategic Petroleum Reserve silliness above. As to providing "energy independence for our country," see Frank Wolf's votes against renewable energy here and here.
"I urge your administration to take immediate steps to halt the filling of the (Strategic Petroleum Reserve) to provide relief today at the pump for American consumers and to work for long-term solutions that can provide energy independence for our country."
Rep. Tom Davis, R-11Again, this is not the answer, nor would it be environmentally prudent. Oil shale "and stuff like that?" Yeah, tear down the Rocky Mountains to get at every last drop of oil -- anything but energy efficiency and clean, renewable power. Thank goodness this guy is leaving Congress; he may be "brilliant" politically, but he's completely clueless when it comes to energy.
"It's more domestic production. And when I say that, it means off-shore. It means probably more in Alaska, but it also means oil shale and stuff like that that is sitting there and didn't make much sense when it was $20 a barrel."
Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va.Webb is exactly right about the oil companies. Webb also has voted consistently the right way when it comes to energy efficiency and renewable energy. The only difference I really have with Webb on energy is his optimism about "clean coal" technology. I don't share it, nor do most energy analysts I've talked to in my life.
"If the big oil companies do not attempt to invest in alternative energy programs or greater refining capabilities, we have an obligation to the American people to begin to push this reform through Congress."
P.S. Bobby Scott and Jim Moran were not included in the Media General article cited above, but they both have excellent records when it comes to energy and environmental issues (see Project Vote Smart).
2. The Party Loyalists (Goode, Cantor, Wolf). They tow the party line (help big oil and big auto, avoid addressing energy conservation or efficiency, and pander to the illusion of a cheap solution - SPR) in order to keep a very small minority happy (business, ideologues) while pretending to be populist.
3. The Local Loyalist (Boucher). It is true that he is an elected representative, and as such, should be the voice of his constituents. But the energy/environment problem is far bigger than any one region, and working to protect a single region while screwing the rest of the country/world is not what we need in this case.
4. Tom Davis. I really don't know what to categorize him as - except maybe generic pro-business. He just fantasizes about the good old days $20 barrel oil and would be happy with any solution to get us there - provided there are ample opportunities to make money.
We can find the money to blow up Iraq (and keep blowing it up), we can pay for grandiose sports parks with public money so private business can make millions off professional sports, we can gamble billions away at Vegas and Atlantic City, and so on. But just try to develop high speed rail networks, light rail like trolleys, pay for another bridge across the Potomac, fund real alternative energy research (a car that runs on water, maybe?), wind farms offshore or on mountain tops (instead of scalping the mountain to get at the coal)... not to mention repairing the infrastructure, updating schools and funding No Child Left Behind, or creating universal health care. Can we find a way here for Halliburtion to make a profit from such green projects? (Bet that would work).
It all begins with public awareness and grassroots political pressure, and, I am afraid, that begins with a responsible media, which means developing a powerful progressive network to replace the baleful influence of Fox and goose the other networks into doing a better job. I suggest this because, sadly, I doubt that simply working through the Internet would result in a strong enough movement to force a progressive solution.
Very true. Smart guy, that Peter Daou, too bad he's not working for Barack Obama! :)
... "crickets" ...