<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Cornerstone environmental law, NEPA, under fire in energy bill]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by da silva http://www.grist.org/article/little-nepa/ Thu, 05 May 2005 08:27:36 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/little-nepa/1 This is not a drill. Oh, wait -- yes it is.

Uh, you sure about that? If I'm not mistaken, that's a pump, not a drill.

]]> This is not a drill. Oh, wait -- yes it is.

Uh, you sure about that? If I'm not mistaken, that's a pump, not a drill.

]]> Comment #2 by Lisa Hymas http://www.grist.org/article/little-nepa/ Thu, 05 May 2005 08:42:36 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/little-nepa/2 Oops.

Good point. We stand corrected. And the caption has been corrected too.  

]]> Oops.

Good point. We stand corrected. And the caption has been corrected too.  

]]> Comment #3 by mtneuman http://www.grist.org/article/little-nepa/ Fri, 06 May 2005 06:56:34 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/little-nepa/3 Don't Shoot Yourself in the Foot, Congress!

It's so nice to see our political representatives in Washington working so hard to find ways to help our big oil companies cut costs and speed up production, so we American's can continue driving our SUVs at will, flying to exotic locations and burning fuel frivolously.  They must think we know what good for us or something.

So what if we end up footing the bill for the tax subsidies for the oil companies by paying higher income taxes?  So what if we lose the last great wilderness area in North America to more oil development?  So what if the air in our cities and surrounding regions becomes too polluted to breathe, due to increased warming of the atmosphere and too much fuel burning?  So what if we lose the polar bear along with the Arctic ice, and our coastal cities go under water, and our farmlands dry up for the growing season.  And so what if the ozone layer gets dangerously thin by the middle of the century and overexposes everyone's children to large daily doses of ultra-violet radiation?

Our representatives in Washington are shooting themselves in the foot (and all of us, too), by passing an energy bill that expands oil supplies yet does nothing to mandate improved energy efficiency and more energy conservation.  To conserve more energy, Americans need to drive less, fly less and use less energy in their homes and businesses.    

The U.S. already burns 25%of the world's oil.  Shouldn't that be enough already?

If every American found ways to cut back in their fuel use by 25%, maybe we wouldn't have to trade away our safety, our health and the beauty and sustainability of our planet?

The energy bill proposes a plan for U.S. energy use that is unsustainable.  It gives incentives to the wrong people and organizations for the wrong reasons.  The oil industry shouldn't be given more of the public's money to pump more oil. That money should be offered to the public in the form of extra incentives to conserve energy (oil) - through reduced fossil fuel burning.  Increase the per gallon tax on fuel to get it.  Then give it back in the form of rebates at the end of the year to Americans who conserve energy more.

A framework for implementation this concept was developed for the state of Wisconsin and can be read from the following site:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate_Articles/message/486

The energy bill needs to include finanical incentives for the right people and the right organizations (all Americans and businesses) - not subsidies, tax incentives and regulatory exemptions for the big oil companies.  That's like shooting yourself in the foot.


]]> Don't Shoot Yourself in the Foot, Congress!

It's so nice to see our political representatives in Washington working so hard to find ways to help our big oil companies cut costs and speed up production, so we American's can continue driving our SUVs at will, flying to exotic locations and burning fuel frivolously.  They must think we know what good for us or something.

So what if we end up footing the bill for the tax subsidies for the oil companies by paying higher income taxes?  So what if we lose the last great wilderness area in North America to more oil development?  So what if the air in our cities and surrounding regions becomes too polluted to breathe, due to increased warming of the atmosphere and too much fuel burning?  So what if we lose the polar bear along with the Arctic ice, and our coastal cities go under water, and our farmlands dry up for the growing season.  And so what if the ozone layer gets dangerously thin by the middle of the century and overexposes everyone's children to large daily doses of ultra-violet radiation?

Our representatives in Washington are shooting themselves in the foot (and all of us, too), by passing an energy bill that expands oil supplies yet does nothing to mandate improved energy efficiency and more energy conservation.  To conserve more energy, Americans need to drive less, fly less and use less energy in their homes and businesses.    

The U.S. already burns 25%of the world's oil.  Shouldn't that be enough already?

If every American found ways to cut back in their fuel use by 25%, maybe we wouldn't have to trade away our safety, our health and the beauty and sustainability of our planet?

The energy bill proposes a plan for U.S. energy use that is unsustainable.  It gives incentives to the wrong people and organizations for the wrong reasons.  The oil industry shouldn't be given more of the public's money to pump more oil. That money should be offered to the public in the form of extra incentives to conserve energy (oil) - through reduced fossil fuel burning.  Increase the per gallon tax on fuel to get it.  Then give it back in the form of rebates at the end of the year to Americans who conserve energy more.

A framework for implementation this concept was developed for the state of Wisconsin and can be read from the following site:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate_Articles/message/486

The energy bill needs to include finanical incentives for the right people and the right organizations (all Americans and businesses) - not subsidies, tax incentives and regulatory exemptions for the big oil companies.  That's like shooting yourself in the foot.


]]>