|
|
Jon Tester on Energy & OilDemocratic Jr Senator |
JONES: The cheapest electrical power is nuclear energy. We must re-institute nuclear power. Coal is another one. Montana is rich in coal, which can be liquefied into gasoline. Government over-regulates the energy industry.
BURNS: Last year we opened up some new areas for energy production. And we found more oil and we found more gas. That's what brings down the price of gasoline, when policies inject competition into the market.
TESTER: America's energy independence is critically important, and we have a tremendous opportunity in Montana to help America become energy-independent. If I were not running for US Senate, on my farm, we would be crushing safflower, because I've run the numbers, and it works, and it provides a renewable energy source that makes sense. We did a lot of things in the last session to help promote bio-fuels and renewables and wind energy.
BURNS: We've been warming since the Ice Age, and that continues. That's a pretty well-known fact.
TESTER: The truth is, the polar ice cap is half as thick as it was in 1950. Yes, Earth is warming since the Ice Age, that's correct, but it's warming much more rapidly now than it ever has in our history.
JONES: There is global warming; it's very slight; it's a recovery from what's called the Little Ice Age, when the average temperatures were much lower. In the years 500AD to 1000AD, temperatures were much higher than they are right now. Global warming is a natural recovery, and is not harmful. Most of it is only happening in the northern hemisphere. Scientists have proven that carbon dioxide emissions contribute only about 5% of the total greenhouse gases. If we reduce that worldwide, do you think it will have a big impact no greenhouse gases? No it will not. This is a natural occurrence and we should not make any effort to change it.
BURNS: No; it doesn't get to the real folks that should have some way of controlling their greenhouse gases. That's the reason I'm a great believer in alternative fuels. We have to do everything that we can do, [but] stay within the economy growing.
TESTER: Us pulling out of the Kyoto Accord is exactly what's wrong. We need to have communication with folks around the world. This is a worldwide problem. I hope [global warming] is a glitch in the environment, but we need to treat it in case it's not. I'd point out that, with the exception of wind and solar, you still have carbon emissions from other renewables, like biofuels and ethanol. Our universities can be a big player in how we can sequester carbon, and solve this carbon issue. We can solve this problem but it's going to take some research dollars, and some commitment, and some leadership. The folks that are there can't do it. We need a change.
Despite the positive elements of this legislation, the main sticking point is whether temporary extensions of tax relief should be offset with permanent tax increases elsewhere. The White House issued a statement recommending a Presidential veto of this bill in its current form. [Vote NAY to] allow the Senate to work its will and pass legislation that can be quickly signed by the President.
But what happens with the DeMint motion, he gives China and India a veto power over what we should be doing. Imagine saying we are not going to do anything about human rights until China acts. Why would we give up our chance to take the mantle of leadership and finally grab hold of this issue? I cannot look into the eyes of my grandchildren and tell them: Sorry, I am giving over my proxy to China & India, and I can't do anything about it.
Proponents support voting YES because:
This legislation seeks to end the unwarranted tax breaks & subsidies which have been lavished on Big Oil over the last several years, at a time of record prices at the gas pump and record oil industry profits. Big Oil is hitting the American taxpayer not once, not twice, but three times. They are hitting them at the pump, they are hitting them through the Tax Code, and they are hitting them with royalty holidays put into oil in 1995 and again in 2005.
It is time to vote for the integrity of America's resources, to vote for the end of corporate welfare, to vote for a new era in the management of our public energy resources.
Opponents support voting NO because:
I am wearing this red shirt today, because this shirt is the color of the bill that we are debating, communist red. It is a taking. It will go to court, and it should be decided in court.
This bill will increase the competitive edge of foreign oil imported to this country. If the problem is foreign oil, why increase taxes and make it harder to produce American oil and gas? That makes no sense. We should insert taxes on all foreign oil imported. That would raise your money for renewable resources. But what we are doing here today is taxing our domestic oil. We are raising dollars supposedly for renewable resources, yet we are still burning fossil fuels.
Status: Bill passed Bill passed, 65-27
Proponents recommend voting YES because:
Our NOPEC bill will authorize filing suit against nations that participate in a conspiracy to limit the supply, or fix the price, of oil. In addition, it will specify that the doctrines of sovereign immunity do not exempt nations that participate in oil cartels from basic antitrust law.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
No one likes OPEC. But this amendment, in my opinion, would make bad law. The Framers of the Constitution wisely assigned responsibility for formulating foreign policy and conducting foreign relations to the President and to the Congress, not to the law courts.
The amendment before us has its roots in a lawsuit filed by the labor union nearly 30 years ago. The union at that time charged OPEC with price fixing in violation of our antitrust laws. The trial court dismissed the case on the ground that OPEC members are sovereign nations and are immune from suit. Adopting the amendment will undoubtedly be very popular, but it is also very unwise.
In addition, we here in the Senate ought to consider how enactment of this amendment might affect our relations with OPEC members. What will be the international repercussions when the US starts awarding judgments against foreign nations and attaching their assets in this country? Will other nations start to view our trade policies--such as our nuclear trade restrictions--as violations of their antitrust laws?
Proponents recommend voting YES because:
It just seems logical that we ask the Corps of Engineers to include in their analyses, judgments about the potential impact of global climate change. All this amendment seeks to do, as a matter of common sense, is to ask the Army Corps of Engineers to factor climate change into their future plans. Secondly, we are making a statement here to finally recognize the reality of what is happening with respect to climate change.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
The same people today who are saying we are all going to die from global warming, just back in the middle 1970s were saying another ice age is coming and we are all going to die. Which way do you want it?
If a surge of anthropogenic gases--this CO2, methane, or whatever it is--were causing a warming period, then around 1945 we would have a warming period because in the middle 1940s we had the greatest increase in greenhouse gases. But what happened? It did not precipitate a warming period.
Peer reviewed evidence shows that the sun has actually been driving the temperature change. You don't have to be a scientist to know that the Sun can have something to do with climate change.
Implementing Kyoto would reduce the average annual household income nearly $2,700, at a time when the cost of all goods would rise sharply.
A resolution that it is the goal of the United States that, not later than January 1, 2025, the agricultural, forestry, and working land of the US should provide from renewable resources not less than 25% of the total energy consumed and continue to produce safe, abundant, and affordable food, feed, and fiber. [Governors also signed letters of endorsement at www.25x25.org]
Rep. SALAZAR: "Our resolution establishes a national goal of producing 25% of America's energy from renewable sources--like solar, wind and biofuels--by 2025. The "25x'25" vision is widely endorsed, bold, and fully attainable. If implemented, it would dramatically improve our energy security, our economy, and our ability to protect the environment.
"I am pleased that more than 20 of my colleagues in the Senate, from both sides of the aisle, are cosponsoring this resolution. In addition, the "25x'25" vision has been endorsed by 22 current and former governors and several State legislatures across the country. The Big Three automobile manufacturers--Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors--are all behind "25x'25" So are many agricultural organizations, environmental groups, scientists, and businesses, ranging from the Natural Resources Defense Council to John Deere.
"These Americans understand that we cannot continue to import 60% of our oil from foreign countries, many of which are hostile to the US, if we aim to be strong and secure in the world. They know that we will have to build a clean energy economy if we are to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It is time for Congress to take a more active role in our clean energy future. Establishing a national goal--"25x'25" is the first step."
