'Mr. Gore's movie has claims no informed expert endorses'
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
The Petition Project actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then, between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.
But now, a new effort has been conducted because of an "escalation of the claims of 'consensus,' release of the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' by Mr. Al Gore, and related events," according to officials with the project.
"Mr. Gore's movie, asserting a 'consensus' and 'settled science' in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse," said project spokesman and founder Art Robinson. Robinson, a research professor of chemistry, co-founded the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine with Linus Pauling in 1973, and later co-founded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. He also publishes the Access to Energy newsletter.
WND submitted a request to Gore's office for comment but did not get a response.
Robinson said the dire warnings about "global warming" have gone far beyond semantics or scientific discussion now to the point they are actually endangering people.
"The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded," he said. "In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries," he said.
In just the past few weeks, there have been various allegations that both shark attacks and typhoons have been sparked by "global warming."
The late Professor Frederick Seitz, the past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and winner of the National Medal of Science, wrote in a letter promoting the petition, "The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds."
"This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful," he wrote.
Accompanying the letter sent to scientists was a 12-page summary and review of research on "global warming," officials said.
"The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries," Seitz wrote.
Robinson said the project targets scientists because, "It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice."
He said the "global warming agreement," written in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, and other plans "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."
"Yet," he said, "the United Nations and other vocal political interests say the U.S. must enact new laws that will sharply reduce domestic energy production and raise energy prices even higher.
"The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness include the right of access to life-giving and life-enhancing technology. This is especially true of access to the most basic of all technologies: energy. These human rights have been extensively and wrongly abridged," he continued. "During the past two generations in the U.S., a system of high taxation, extensive regulation, and ubiquitous litigation has arisen that prevents the accumulation of sufficient capital and the exercise of sufficient freedom to build and preserve needed modern technology.
"These unfavorable political trends have severely damaged our energy production, where lack of industrial progress has left our country dependent upon foreign sources for 30 percent of the energy required to maintain our current level of prosperity," he said. "Moreover, the transfer of other U.S. industries abroad as a result of these same trends has left U.S. citizens with too few goods and services to trade for the energy that they do not produce. A huge and unsustainable trade deficit and rapidly rising energy prices have been the result.
"The necessary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy production technologies have been available to U.S. engineers for many decades. We can develop these resources without harm to people or the environment. There is absolutely no technical, resource, or environmental reason for the U.S. to be a net importer of energy. The U.S. should, in fact, be a net exporter of energy," he said.
He told WND he believes the issue has nothing to do with energy itself, but everything to do with power, control and money, which the United Nations is seeking. He accused the U.N. of violating human rights in its campaign to ban much energy research, exploration and development.
"In order to alleviate the current energy emergency and prevent future emergencies, we need to remove the governmental restrictions that have caused this problem. Fundamental human rights require that U.S. citizens and their industries be free to produce and use the low cost, abundant energy that they need. As the 31,000 signatories of this petition emphasize, environmental science supports this freedom," he said.
The Petition Project website today said there are 31,072 scientists who have signed up, and Robinson said more names continue to come in.
In terms of Ph.D. scientists alone, it already has 15 times more scientists than are seriously involved in the U.N.'s campaign to "vilify hydrocarbons," officials told WND.
"The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it," the organization noted.
The project was set up by a team of physicists and physical chemists who do research at several American institutions and collects signatures when donations provide the resources to mail out more letters.
"In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists," the website said.
The petition is needed, supporters said, simply because Gore and others "have claimed that the 'science is settled' – that an overwhelming 'consensus' of scientists agrees with the hypothesis of human-caused global warming, with only a handful of skeptical scientists in disagreement."
The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master's level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.
Article Link
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Congress's unsound fury over Big Oil
Movie theaters capture more windfall profit than oil companies.
By Justin Danhof
from the August 7, 2008 edition
Washington - With this summer's high gas prices, Americans are trading in their traditional vacations for "staycations" – vacations much closer to home.
But compared with other things Americans might do, driving is still a bargain.
Consider, for example, the costs of going to a movie:
To take a family of four to a movie at an AMC Theatre, it will cost anywhere from $55.75 to $71.50, depending on whether the family shares movie snacks or not, and this does not even include gasoline.
For that same $71.50, the family could purchase enough gas for their car (of decent gas mileage) to drive from Disneyland to Las Vegas and back again. And for the price of tickets and extra-large refreshments, , they could drive from Disneyland to the Grand Canyon and back again.
Where are the calls for federal investigation into price gouging at concession stands?
For years, populist politicians have dragged oil industry executives to Capitol Hill and accused them of price manipulation. Every time gas prices increase, liberal lawmakers direct the Federal Trade Commission to investigate oil industry price gouging. To their chagrin, the FTC has never found oil industry price manipulation.
What evidence does congress use to back their price gouging claims? Try none.
In 2005, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D) of Washington responded to a question on whether she believed oil companies were price gouging, "[a]bsolutely." she said. "I just don't have the document to prove it."
And this past May, in a speech on the House floor, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D) of Florida targeted oil company executives when she said, "I can't say that there's evidence that you are manipulating the price, but I believe that you probably are."
Shouldn't we demand more from our politicians than unfounded accusations?
These congressional hearings are often followed by attempts to impose so-called windfall profits taxes on oil companies. The process is reminiscent of the medieval practice of trial by ordeal, in which the accused are subjected to a painful – possibly fatal procedure – with the expectation that the truly innocent will be saved.
So far, the oil companies have survived. The most recent attempt to impose such a tax on "unreasonable" profits failed in June.
And just what do congressional advocates of a windfall profits tax consider unreasonable?
In the first quarter of 2008, Big Oil had a profit margin of 7.4 percent. Over that same period, the pharmaceutical and medicine industry earned a 25.9 percent profit, the chemical industry earned 15.7 percent and the electronic equipment industry earned 12.1 percent.
What about those movie theater refreshments? Four large popcorns and four large sodas cost $31.50. The total raw ingredient cost is approximately $7.56. That equals a 76 percent gross margin. Where is the political outrage over that figure?
Still believe it is the oil companies gouging us? Speaker Nancy Pelosi seems to.
Ms. Pelosi has called oil company profits "obscene," and recently supported yet another measure to investigate alleged oil industry price gouging.
Let's take a look at where each dollar spent at the pump goes. In the first quarter of 2008, the majority – 70 cents – was spent to purchase crude oil, 17 cents was spent on refining and retailing, and 13 cents on paying taxes.
American oil companies cannot change the largest factor influencing gasoline prices – the cost of crude oil.
In The New York Times, columnist Edmund L. Andrews asked satirically last year "if the oil industry is so powerful, why did it let gasoline prices fall through the floor throughout the 1980s and part of the 1990s? For that matter why did it let gasoline prices fall sharply after they spiked in 2005 and 2006?"
Pelosi never decried this "obscene" lack of profits and shareholder abuse. Instead, she seeks to punish an industry that makes a modest profit margin on a high demand good.
• Justin Danhof is a research associate with the National Center for Public Policy Research, a nonpartisan, nonprofit educational foundation based in Washington.
Article Link
By Justin Danhof
from the August 7, 2008 edition
Washington - With this summer's high gas prices, Americans are trading in their traditional vacations for "staycations" – vacations much closer to home.
But compared with other things Americans might do, driving is still a bargain.
Consider, for example, the costs of going to a movie:
To take a family of four to a movie at an AMC Theatre, it will cost anywhere from $55.75 to $71.50, depending on whether the family shares movie snacks or not, and this does not even include gasoline.
For that same $71.50, the family could purchase enough gas for their car (of decent gas mileage) to drive from Disneyland to Las Vegas and back again. And for the price of tickets and extra-large refreshments, , they could drive from Disneyland to the Grand Canyon and back again.
Where are the calls for federal investigation into price gouging at concession stands?
For years, populist politicians have dragged oil industry executives to Capitol Hill and accused them of price manipulation. Every time gas prices increase, liberal lawmakers direct the Federal Trade Commission to investigate oil industry price gouging. To their chagrin, the FTC has never found oil industry price manipulation.
What evidence does congress use to back their price gouging claims? Try none.
In 2005, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D) of Washington responded to a question on whether she believed oil companies were price gouging, "[a]bsolutely." she said. "I just don't have the document to prove it."
And this past May, in a speech on the House floor, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D) of Florida targeted oil company executives when she said, "I can't say that there's evidence that you are manipulating the price, but I believe that you probably are."
Shouldn't we demand more from our politicians than unfounded accusations?
These congressional hearings are often followed by attempts to impose so-called windfall profits taxes on oil companies. The process is reminiscent of the medieval practice of trial by ordeal, in which the accused are subjected to a painful – possibly fatal procedure – with the expectation that the truly innocent will be saved.
So far, the oil companies have survived. The most recent attempt to impose such a tax on "unreasonable" profits failed in June.
And just what do congressional advocates of a windfall profits tax consider unreasonable?
In the first quarter of 2008, Big Oil had a profit margin of 7.4 percent. Over that same period, the pharmaceutical and medicine industry earned a 25.9 percent profit, the chemical industry earned 15.7 percent and the electronic equipment industry earned 12.1 percent.
What about those movie theater refreshments? Four large popcorns and four large sodas cost $31.50. The total raw ingredient cost is approximately $7.56. That equals a 76 percent gross margin. Where is the political outrage over that figure?
Still believe it is the oil companies gouging us? Speaker Nancy Pelosi seems to.
Ms. Pelosi has called oil company profits "obscene," and recently supported yet another measure to investigate alleged oil industry price gouging.
Let's take a look at where each dollar spent at the pump goes. In the first quarter of 2008, the majority – 70 cents – was spent to purchase crude oil, 17 cents was spent on refining and retailing, and 13 cents on paying taxes.
American oil companies cannot change the largest factor influencing gasoline prices – the cost of crude oil.
In The New York Times, columnist Edmund L. Andrews asked satirically last year "if the oil industry is so powerful, why did it let gasoline prices fall through the floor throughout the 1980s and part of the 1990s? For that matter why did it let gasoline prices fall sharply after they spiked in 2005 and 2006?"
Pelosi never decried this "obscene" lack of profits and shareholder abuse. Instead, she seeks to punish an industry that makes a modest profit margin on a high demand good.
• Justin Danhof is a research associate with the National Center for Public Policy Research, a nonpartisan, nonprofit educational foundation based in Washington.
Article Link
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Putting Money Where Mouths Are: Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1
By WILLIAM TATE | Posted Wednesday, July 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT
The New York Times' refusal to publish John McCain's rebuttal to Barack Obama's Iraq op-ed may be the most glaring example of liberal media bias this journalist has ever seen. But true proof of widespread media bias requires one to follow an old journalism maxim: Follow the money.
Even the Associated Press — no bastion of conservatism — has considered, at least superficially, the media's favoritism for Barack Obama. It's time to revisit media bias.
True to form, journalists are defending their bias by saying that one candidate, Obama, is more newsworthy than the other. In other words, there is no media bias. It is we, the hoi polloi, who reveal our bias by questioning the neutrality of these learned professionals in their ivory-towered newsrooms.
Big Media applies this rationalization to every argument used to point out bias. "It's not a result of bias," they say. "It's a matter of news judgment."
And, like the man who knows his wallet was pickpocketed but can't prove it, the public is left to futilely rage against the injustice of it all.
The "newsworthy" argument can be applied to every metric — one-sided imbalances in airtime, story placement, column inches, number of stories, etc. — save one.
An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .
Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.
Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.
And while the money totals pale in comparison to the $9-million-plus that just one union's PACs have spent to get Obama elected, they are more substantial than the amount that Obama has criticized John McCain for receiving from lobbyists: 96 lobbyists have contributed $95,850 to McCain, while Obama — who says he won't take money from PACs or federal lobbyists — has received $16,223 from 29 lobbyists.
A few journalists list their employer as an organization like MSNBC, MSNBC.com or ABC News, or report that they're freelancers for the New York Times, or are journalists for Al Jazeera, CNN Turkey, Deutsche Welle Radio or La Republica of Rome (all contributions to Obama). Most report no employer. They're mainly freelancers. That's because most major news organization have policies that forbid newsroom employees from making political donations.
As if to warn their colleagues in the media, MSNBC last summer ran a story on journalists' contributions to political candidates that drew a similar conclusion:
"Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left."
The timing of that article was rather curious. Dated June 25, 2007, it appeared during the middle of the summer news doldrums in a non-election year — timing that was sure to minimize its impact among the general public, while still warning newsrooms across the country that such political donations can be checked.
In case that was too subtle, MSNBC ran a sidebar story detailing cautionary tales of reporters who lost their jobs or were otherwise negatively impacted because their donations became public.
As if to warn their comrades-in-news against putting their money where their mouth is, the report also cautioned that, with the Internet, "it became easier for the blogging public to look up the donors."
It went on to detail the ban that most major media organizations have against newsroom employees donating to political campaigns, a ban that raises some obvious First Amendment issues. Whether it's intentional or not, the ban makes it difficult to verify the political leanings of Big Media reporters, editors and producers. There are two logical ways to extrapolate what those leanings are, though.
One is the overwhelming nature of the above statistics. Given the pack mentality among journalists and, just like any pack, the tendency to follow the leader — in this case, Big Media — and since Big Media are centered in some of the bluest of blue parts of the country, it is highly likely that the media elite reflect the same, or an even greater, liberal bias.
A second is to analyze contributions from folks in the same corporate cultures. That analysis provides some surprising results. The contributions of individuals who reported being employed by major media organizations are listed in the nearby table.
The contributions add up to $315,533 to Democrats and $22,656 to Republicans — most of that to Ron Paul, who was supported by many liberals as a stalking horse to John McCain, a la Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos with Hillary and Obama.
What is truly remarkable about the list is that, discounting contributions to Paul and Rudy Giuliani, who was a favorite son for many folks in the media, the totals look like this: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain).
Let me repeat: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans — a ratio of 100-to-1. No bias there.
Tate is a former journalist, now a novelist and the author of "A Time Like This: 2001-2008." This article first appeared on the American Thinker Web site.
Article Link
The New York Times' refusal to publish John McCain's rebuttal to Barack Obama's Iraq op-ed may be the most glaring example of liberal media bias this journalist has ever seen. But true proof of widespread media bias requires one to follow an old journalism maxim: Follow the money.
Even the Associated Press — no bastion of conservatism — has considered, at least superficially, the media's favoritism for Barack Obama. It's time to revisit media bias.
True to form, journalists are defending their bias by saying that one candidate, Obama, is more newsworthy than the other. In other words, there is no media bias. It is we, the hoi polloi, who reveal our bias by questioning the neutrality of these learned professionals in their ivory-towered newsrooms.
Big Media applies this rationalization to every argument used to point out bias. "It's not a result of bias," they say. "It's a matter of news judgment."
And, like the man who knows his wallet was pickpocketed but can't prove it, the public is left to futilely rage against the injustice of it all.
The "newsworthy" argument can be applied to every metric — one-sided imbalances in airtime, story placement, column inches, number of stories, etc. — save one.
An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .
Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.
Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.
And while the money totals pale in comparison to the $9-million-plus that just one union's PACs have spent to get Obama elected, they are more substantial than the amount that Obama has criticized John McCain for receiving from lobbyists: 96 lobbyists have contributed $95,850 to McCain, while Obama — who says he won't take money from PACs or federal lobbyists — has received $16,223 from 29 lobbyists.
A few journalists list their employer as an organization like MSNBC, MSNBC.com or ABC News, or report that they're freelancers for the New York Times, or are journalists for Al Jazeera, CNN Turkey, Deutsche Welle Radio or La Republica of Rome (all contributions to Obama). Most report no employer. They're mainly freelancers. That's because most major news organization have policies that forbid newsroom employees from making political donations.
As if to warn their colleagues in the media, MSNBC last summer ran a story on journalists' contributions to political candidates that drew a similar conclusion:
"Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left."
The timing of that article was rather curious. Dated June 25, 2007, it appeared during the middle of the summer news doldrums in a non-election year — timing that was sure to minimize its impact among the general public, while still warning newsrooms across the country that such political donations can be checked.
In case that was too subtle, MSNBC ran a sidebar story detailing cautionary tales of reporters who lost their jobs or were otherwise negatively impacted because their donations became public.
As if to warn their comrades-in-news against putting their money where their mouth is, the report also cautioned that, with the Internet, "it became easier for the blogging public to look up the donors."
It went on to detail the ban that most major media organizations have against newsroom employees donating to political campaigns, a ban that raises some obvious First Amendment issues. Whether it's intentional or not, the ban makes it difficult to verify the political leanings of Big Media reporters, editors and producers. There are two logical ways to extrapolate what those leanings are, though.
One is the overwhelming nature of the above statistics. Given the pack mentality among journalists and, just like any pack, the tendency to follow the leader — in this case, Big Media — and since Big Media are centered in some of the bluest of blue parts of the country, it is highly likely that the media elite reflect the same, or an even greater, liberal bias.
A second is to analyze contributions from folks in the same corporate cultures. That analysis provides some surprising results. The contributions of individuals who reported being employed by major media organizations are listed in the nearby table.
The contributions add up to $315,533 to Democrats and $22,656 to Republicans — most of that to Ron Paul, who was supported by many liberals as a stalking horse to John McCain, a la Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos with Hillary and Obama.
What is truly remarkable about the list is that, discounting contributions to Paul and Rudy Giuliani, who was a favorite son for many folks in the media, the totals look like this: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain).
Let me repeat: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans — a ratio of 100-to-1. No bias there.
Tate is a former journalist, now a novelist and the author of "A Time Like This: 2001-2008." This article first appeared on the American Thinker Web site.
Article Link
Monday, August 4, 2008
Congress takes five-week vacation without passing energy bill
By Thomas Burr
The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated:08/01/2008 12:16:38 AM MDT
Posted: 5:24 PM- WASHINGTON -- Congress sets off on summer vacation Friday with Republicans and Democrats fired up over the lack of action on gas prices and blaming each other for not lessening the pain at the pump.
The House and Senate are taking a five-week-long vacation starting Friday afternoon, but before they cast off, members took turns sniping at the opposing party for their inability to pass any legislation affecting oil prices.
Utah's Republican senators, Bob Bennett and Orrin Hatch, argued several times this week - on the Senate floor, at news conferences, in statements - that Congress needed to move on measures that would open up off-shore drilling, drop a moratorium on oil shale leases and push for renewable energy sources.
Hatch said those opposed to those efforts are really just hurting the poorest Americans.
"When it comes to the War on the Poor, you're either with the poor or against them," Hatch said at a news conference with advocates of opening up coastal waters and an Arctic refuge for drilling, allowing oil shale production and building new refineries.
Democrats argued that the Republican plans wouldn't decrease the price of oil and were only attempts to placate oil companies. Several pointed out Republicans had fought against getting rid of tax breaks for Big Oil at a time when consumers were paying $4 or more a gallon and Exxon Mobile recorded the highest profit this quarter of any U.S. company in history.
The Republicans arguments weren't really about oil production, said Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J. "This is about Republicans protecting record oil company profits."
In back-and-forth bickering on the Senate floor Thursday, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell attempted to force Democrats to vote on a measure opening up coastal waters for drilling when gas reached $4.50, $5 or even $7.50 a gallon.
"If $5-gallon gasoline isn't an emergency, I have to ask what is an emergency?" McConnell said.
"It's a phantom solution," countered Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo, noting that such drilling would not affect gas prices in the short term.
Bennett sought to find a mix of more drilling and incentives for renewable resources, saying the nation needs to wean itself off oil but requires more oil sources in the meantime.
"If we can increase our ability to produce energy, we can control the building of the bridge to the long-term future when we are no longer as dependent on fossil fuels as we are now," Bennett said. "If we want to get to renewables, we have to build a bridge to get there."
Nonetheless, as Congress jets out of a hot, humid Washington, members were unable to strike a compromise on energy legislation. The legislative body returns to session after the Republican National Convention in September for a scheduled two weeks before again taking leave again to campaign.
It's unclear yet whether Congress will return to work after that break.
tburr@sltrib.com
Article Link
The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated:08/01/2008 12:16:38 AM MDT
Posted: 5:24 PM- WASHINGTON -- Congress sets off on summer vacation Friday with Republicans and Democrats fired up over the lack of action on gas prices and blaming each other for not lessening the pain at the pump.
The House and Senate are taking a five-week-long vacation starting Friday afternoon, but before they cast off, members took turns sniping at the opposing party for their inability to pass any legislation affecting oil prices.
Utah's Republican senators, Bob Bennett and Orrin Hatch, argued several times this week - on the Senate floor, at news conferences, in statements - that Congress needed to move on measures that would open up off-shore drilling, drop a moratorium on oil shale leases and push for renewable energy sources.
Hatch said those opposed to those efforts are really just hurting the poorest Americans.
"When it comes to the War on the Poor, you're either with the poor or against them," Hatch said at a news conference with advocates of opening up coastal waters and an Arctic refuge for drilling, allowing oil shale production and building new refineries.
Democrats argued that the Republican plans wouldn't decrease the price of oil and were only attempts to placate oil companies. Several pointed out Republicans had fought against getting rid of tax breaks for Big Oil at a time when consumers were paying $4 or more a gallon and Exxon Mobile recorded the highest profit this quarter of any U.S. company in history.
The Republicans arguments weren't really about oil production, said Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J. "This is about Republicans protecting record oil company profits."
In back-and-forth bickering on the Senate floor Thursday, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell attempted to force Democrats to vote on a measure opening up coastal waters for drilling when gas reached $4.50, $5 or even $7.50 a gallon.
"If $5-gallon gasoline isn't an emergency, I have to ask what is an emergency?" McConnell said.
"It's a phantom solution," countered Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo, noting that such drilling would not affect gas prices in the short term.
Bennett sought to find a mix of more drilling and incentives for renewable resources, saying the nation needs to wean itself off oil but requires more oil sources in the meantime.
"If we can increase our ability to produce energy, we can control the building of the bridge to the long-term future when we are no longer as dependent on fossil fuels as we are now," Bennett said. "If we want to get to renewables, we have to build a bridge to get there."
Nonetheless, as Congress jets out of a hot, humid Washington, members were unable to strike a compromise on energy legislation. The legislative body returns to session after the Republican National Convention in September for a scheduled two weeks before again taking leave again to campaign.
It's unclear yet whether Congress will return to work after that break.
tburr@sltrib.com
Article Link
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
