Saw this on Reuters ..
U.S. House urged to drop MTBE from energy bill
Tue May 17, 2005 04:07 PM ET
By Tom Doggett
WASHINGTON, May 17 (Reuters) - The top Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee said on Tuesday House lawmakers should drop their plan to use a broad energy bill to protect big oil companies that make a water polluting gasoline additive from being sued.
The Senate's energy panel began debating on Tuesday legislation to update U.S. energy policy and boost domestic supplies of oil, gasoline, natural gas, coal and electricity.
The House of Representatives last month approved its energy bill which includes a provision protecting oil firms, such as ConocoPhillips (COP.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM.N: Quote, Profile, Research) , which produce the MTBE fuel additive from certain lawsuits.
Democrat Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico pointed out that the Senate has previously rejected providing such protection and the chamber's latest energy bill won't have the liability waiver.
"We will do our best to persuade the House that this (MTBE lawsuit protection) is not an essential part of a comprehensive energy bill," Bingaman said at an energy conference sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
U.S. refiners began adding MTBE to gasoline in 1979 as an anti-knock agent that replaced lead, but its use soared in 1995 to comply with a federal law to make cleaner burning fuel.
However, MTBE has seeped in to water supplies in all 50 states through leaky storage tanks, rendering the water undrinkable.
On Tuesday, the Senate committee approved provisions in the bill related to Indian energy issues, Energy Department management and personnel and training matters. On Wednesday the panel will vote on provisions related to hydrogen, coal, vehicles and fuels, and energy research and development.
Bingaman said the committee hopes to clear the energy bill next week and then send it to the full Senate for a vote next month.
The Senate measure would have to be reconciled with the House's much different energy legislation. President George W. Bush has demanded that Congress send him a final energy package by Aug. 1 to sign into law.
Ethanol is supposed to replace MTBE ..
Will be instructive to watch what special
interest provisions sneak into the final version
of this legislation ..
Triff ..
PeakOil is You
THE US Energy Bills (2005-2007) Thread (merged)
2005 Energy Bill
by Triffin » Wed 18 May 2005, 10:33:58
-
Triffin - Peat
- Posts: 182
- Joined: Wed 23 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: SW Ct SW Va
oh well. That's that then. Never mind
by KevO » Thu 23 Jun 2005, 06:52:40
So, here's why peak oil _will_ happen, the US won't do anything
from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 65_pf.html
is
The Senate yesterday rejected a measure calling for mandatory limits on emissions linked to global warming, siding with the Bush administration's position that the restrictions would cost jobs, drive industry overseas and run up consumers' energy bills.
Voting 60 to 38, lawmakers rejected an amendment to a major energy bill that would have forced reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases to 2000 levels by 2010 and created an emissions trading program. Eleven Democrats joined Republicans in opposing the measure, and six Republicans voted with the Democrats to support it.
Opponents said the legislation would be too costly for businesses and would force manufacturers to move operations and jobs overseas. Some also disputed the conclusions of most scientists who have linked greenhouse gas emissions with global warming. (more at link)
Ok. Tequila anyone?
KevO
from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 65_pf.html
is
The Senate yesterday rejected a measure calling for mandatory limits on emissions linked to global warming, siding with the Bush administration's position that the restrictions would cost jobs, drive industry overseas and run up consumers' energy bills.
Voting 60 to 38, lawmakers rejected an amendment to a major energy bill that would have forced reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases to 2000 levels by 2010 and created an emissions trading program. Eleven Democrats joined Republicans in opposing the measure, and six Republicans voted with the Democrats to support it.
Opponents said the legislation would be too costly for businesses and would force manufacturers to move operations and jobs overseas. Some also disputed the conclusions of most scientists who have linked greenhouse gas emissions with global warming. (more at link)
Ok. Tequila anyone?
KevO
- KevO
- Expert
- Posts: 2775
- Joined: Tue 24 May 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: CT USA
by JoeW » Thu 23 Jun 2005, 07:58:31
if you believe in imminent peak oil, then greenhouse gas emissions are the least of your worries.
we will have less emissions when we are burning less fossil fuels!
so if you want to worry about global warming, then i suggest starting another website called www.lookouteverybodytheglobeiswarming.com
JW
we will have less emissions when we are burning less fossil fuels!
so if you want to worry about global warming, then i suggest starting another website called www.lookouteverybodytheglobeiswarming.com
JW
-
JoeW - Tar Sands
- Posts: 647
- Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: The Pit of Despair
- Ludi
by Sys1 » Thu 23 Jun 2005, 08:35:11
Some months ago, GWB spoke about hydrogen economy. Now we know that it will be produce from fossil fuels... if it ever been produce !
Let me give an hypothesis about global warming deny. USA must produce lot of energy in order to survive, and now that oil starts to running out, they will shift to coal !
I live in France : my grandfather worked in coal mines (transport). He explained me that "gazogene" (don't know how to translate) was produce from coal, and was liquide. His truck engine needed to get warmer during half of an hour before allowing to move with this fuel.
Now, more than 50 years after coal exploitation in south of France, ancient coal mines are bought by UK. My grandfather doesn't know about Hubbert curb/ peak oil/ growth and all economic implications. He stopped school at the age of 14, lived most of his life in a village, and doesn't know what internet means. Despite that, he told me stuffs like "Soon, they will go back to coal as oil is running out." or "Cities are growing too fast, and those stupid politics are happy about it... If it's not stopping, there won't be enough water/food for them".
I was amazed that someone as modest as him is wiser than our so-called intellectuals/economists/politics who "studyed" so much.
Let me give an hypothesis about global warming deny. USA must produce lot of energy in order to survive, and now that oil starts to running out, they will shift to coal !
I live in France : my grandfather worked in coal mines (transport). He explained me that "gazogene" (don't know how to translate) was produce from coal, and was liquide. His truck engine needed to get warmer during half of an hour before allowing to move with this fuel.
Now, more than 50 years after coal exploitation in south of France, ancient coal mines are bought by UK. My grandfather doesn't know about Hubbert curb/ peak oil/ growth and all economic implications. He stopped school at the age of 14, lived most of his life in a village, and doesn't know what internet means. Despite that, he told me stuffs like "Soon, they will go back to coal as oil is running out." or "Cities are growing too fast, and those stupid politics are happy about it... If it's not stopping, there won't be enough water/food for them".
I was amazed that someone as modest as him is wiser than our so-called intellectuals/economists/politics who "studyed" so much.
-
Sys1 - Tar Sands
- Posts: 983
- Joined: Fri 25 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
by aflurry » Thu 23 Jun 2005, 14:12:02
I always feel i have throw in my opinion, that the belief in a mutual exclusivity between global warming and peak oil is nonsense.
The first luxury we will get rid of as the reality of peak oil ratchets up anxiety into panic will be emmissions standards. controlling emmissions costs money, which increases the price of oil. keeping them will become a political liability.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'i')f you believe in imminent peak oil, then greenhouse gas emissions are the least of your worries. we will have less emissions when we are burning less fossil fuels!
The first luxury we will get rid of as the reality of peak oil ratchets up anxiety into panic will be emmissions standards. controlling emmissions costs money, which increases the price of oil. keeping them will become a political liability.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'i')f you believe in imminent peak oil, then greenhouse gas emissions are the least of your worries. we will have less emissions when we are burning less fossil fuels!
This is the form that the justification will come in.
As dirty as it is, oil is a hell of alot cleaner than it's precursors, coal and wood, which we will fall back on hard when oil becomes scarce as the peak progresses. And at the same time, without oil as a buffer we will be that much more exposed to the effects of a compromised ecosystem.
The nihilism of the evangelicals who believe in the coming apocalypse and rapture and therefore do not care about the future of the world or the well-being of the environment, should not be abetted by the nihilism of Peak Oilists who are so in love with their theories of collapse that they care nothing for the less beautiful, less cinematic possibility that civilization in some form will go on, and that we will still be here 100 years from now, poorer, fewer, but still at capacity and still struggling to get by.
Peak Oil will get complicated, and everyone has to allow at least for the possibility that life will go on. If it does, shouldn't we still be concerned about compromising the stability of the environment?
OK, i'm done.
-
aflurry - Tar Sands
- Posts: 824
- Joined: Mon 28 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
by Eli » Thu 23 Jun 2005, 14:45:12
What the US does will be immaterial compared too the rest of the world. do you think China is going to worry about emissions
ion standards when energy resources are harder to come b?
The US will cut down on consumption only market forces it too. More coal is going to be burned world wide. The greeners who think were going to all be living on collective farms feeding cows and cute little duckies are nuts.
We are going to turn this place into a cess-pool pool just tryin to keep warm.
The world market is the beast in control of this thing not the US congress.
ion standards when energy resources are harder to come b?
The US will cut down on consumption only market forces it too. More coal is going to be burned world wide. The greeners who think were going to all be living on collective farms feeding cows and cute little duckies are nuts.
We are going to turn this place into a cess-pool pool just tryin to keep warm.
The world market is the beast in control of this thing not the US congress.
-
Eli - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 3709
- Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: In a van down by the river
by aflurry » Thu 23 Jun 2005, 15:00:06
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e are going to turn this place into a cess-pool pool just tryin to keep warm.
Oh, I agree completely. If we can't address global warming now, we sure as hell won't be able to when times get lean. I just don't think Peak Oil will resolve it either.
I'm with you. We are screwed six ways from Sunday.
-
aflurry - Tar Sands
- Posts: 824
- Joined: Mon 28 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
by cat » Thu 23 Jun 2005, 16:39:21
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o, here's why peak oil _will_ happen, the US won't do anything
from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 65_pf.html
is
The Senate yesterday rejected a measure calling for mandatory limits on emissions linked to global warming, siding with the Bush administration's position that the restrictions would cost jobs, drive industry overseas and run up consumers' energy bills.
from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 65_pf.html
is
The Senate yesterday rejected a measure calling for mandatory limits on emissions linked to global warming, siding with the Bush administration's position that the restrictions would cost jobs, drive industry overseas and run up consumers' energy bills.
It's really sad. This country, seemingly, would rather create an unlivable world for its children, (or deny the possibility) rather than deal with any potential economic hardships caused by regulating CO2 emissions. My hope is that maybe "peak oil" would shake people up a bit and once prices were high enough and the word was out, and we would start to conserve and change our lifestyles in such a way that would be less damaging to the planet (if not for climate change, for the decreasing of energy supplies). I realize I may be dreaming.
-
cat - Peat
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Mon 09 May 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Western Washington
