Bill Wouldn't Wean U.S. Off Oil Imports, Analysts Say

[Roland99]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/25/AR2005072501707.html

Despite repeated calls by President Bush and members of Congress to decrease U.S. dependence on oil imports, a major energy bill that appears headed for passage this week would not significantly reduce the country's need for foreign oil, according to analysts and interest groups.

The United States imports 58 percent of the oil it consumes. Federal officials project that by 2025, the country will have to import 68 percent of its oil to meet demand. At best, analysts say, the energy legislation would slightly slow that rate of growth of dependence.

<...>

But the emerging package does not do what some analysts said would have the greatest impact on reducing U.S. oil demand and cutting imports: a requirement to increase fuel-efficiency standards for trucks and cars. Under strong pressure from the automobile industry, the House and Senate rejected higher efficiency standards. Lawmakers argued that doing so would require redesigns that would make vehicles unsafe and result in a loss of manufacturing jobs -- arguments sharply disputed by advocates of fuel efficiency.

<...>

From the start, Bush and GOP lawmakers have sold their energy policies as a means of reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil. "Our dependence on foreign oil is like a foreign tax on the American dream, and that tax is growing every year," Bush said in May. During the Senate debate on the energy bill last month, Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said: "We must take steps to reduce our dependence on foreign countries and thereby enhance our energy security at home. When we rely on other nations for more than half our oil supply, we simply put our security at risk."

Figures. Anything to keep the American oil company execs' pockets fatter with cash, not to mention the Bandar Bush's of the world.

[htuttle]

1. We're just going to have to hit the wall before we're forced to change

Because we're just stupid people. Stupid, stupid people.

And it's going to HURT!

:shrug:

[Robbien]

2. The House and Senate bills both included privatization clauses

because they both called for the repeal of Public Utilities Holding Company Act (PUHCA). With PUHCA gone, there would be no restrictions on utility holding companies who would be free to raid assets of utilities to fund investments in unrelated businesses.

CommonCause talked about it but MSM has been silent.

Wonder if it still is in the new bill. Also wonder how many more evil clauses they are burying in the bill.

[Roland99]

3. And does this lead into the water rights fiasco we're heading into?

[obxhead]

4. arguments sharply disputed

"Lawmakers argued that doing so would require redesigns that would make vehicles unsafe and result in a loss of manufacturing jobs -- arguments sharply disputed by advocates of fuel efficiency."



Seems the Japanese can do it with their vehicles. Hasn't Honda & Toyota been in the top ten rankings on safty for more than a decade?

[Roland99]

5. They're right up there. Hyundais aren't bad either

[Robbien]

6. No mention of the repeal of PUCHA

and no discussion.

Which means it is probably in there. Privatization and corporate raiding of our public utitlies is about to start.

Start making your utilty checks out to Halliburton.