<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for It ain’t pretty]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Bart Anderson http://www.grist.org/article/reaction-to-the-energy-bill-from-newspaper-editorial-boards/ Thu, 28 Jul 2005 18:02:56 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/reaction-to-the-energy-bill-from-newspaper-editorial-boards/1 The media get on their hind legs

I was surprised by the unanimity of the major papers.  

The SF Chronicle chimed in with:
An inefficient energy policy

THE ENERGY bill making its way through Congress this week is notable for what it doesn't do. It doesn't end this nation's dependence on foreign oil. And it doesn't end the oil and gas industry's reliance on generous tax breaks from the federal government.

The version on the brink of final passage in the House and Senate this week fails to include what should have been the central element of a genuine federal energy policy: A required increase in fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks. But the domestic auto industry successfully lobbied against higher mileage standards.

In related news, the EPA apparently held back a report on (declining) fuel efficiency, to help smooth passage of the bill.  From the NY Times: E.P.A. Holds Back Report on Car Fuel Efficiency

DETROIT, July 27 - With Congress poised for a final vote on the energy bill, the Environmental Protection Agency made an 11th-hour decision Tuesday to delay the planned release of an annual report on fuel economy.

But a copy of the report, embargoed for publication Wednesday, was sent to The New York Times by a member of the E.P.A. communications staff just minutes before the decision was made to delay it until next week. The contents of the report show that loopholes in American fuel economy regulations have allowed automakers to produce cars and trucks that are significantly less fuel-efficient, on average, than they were in the late 1980's.


]]> The media get on their hind legs

I was surprised by the unanimity of the major papers.  

The SF Chronicle chimed in with:
An inefficient energy policy

THE ENERGY bill making its way through Congress this week is notable for what it doesn't do. It doesn't end this nation's dependence on foreign oil. And it doesn't end the oil and gas industry's reliance on generous tax breaks from the federal government.

The version on the brink of final passage in the House and Senate this week fails to include what should have been the central element of a genuine federal energy policy: A required increase in fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks. But the domestic auto industry successfully lobbied against higher mileage standards.

In related news, the EPA apparently held back a report on (declining) fuel efficiency, to help smooth passage of the bill.  From the NY Times: E.P.A. Holds Back Report on Car Fuel Efficiency

DETROIT, July 27 - With Congress poised for a final vote on the energy bill, the Environmental Protection Agency made an 11th-hour decision Tuesday to delay the planned release of an annual report on fuel economy.

But a copy of the report, embargoed for publication Wednesday, was sent to The New York Times by a member of the E.P.A. communications staff just minutes before the decision was made to delay it until next week. The contents of the report show that loopholes in American fuel economy regulations have allowed automakers to produce cars and trucks that are significantly less fuel-efficient, on average, than they were in the late 1980's.


]]> Comment #2 by Jerry Taylor http://www.grist.org/article/reaction-to-the-energy-bill-from-newspaper-editorial-boards/ Fri, 29 Jul 2005 00:34:40 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/reaction-to-the-energy-bill-from-newspaper-editorial-boards/2 Dems Voted for It

It should be noted, however, that the bill passed in the House with substantial Democratic support.  The same will likely be the case in the Senate today.  That's the story it seems to me.  I.e., it's not surprising that Republicans like this bil.  But what are Democrats doing supporting the biggest windfall the nuclear power industry has experienced in modern memory?  

]]> Dems Voted for It

It should be noted, however, that the bill passed in the House with substantial Democratic support.  The same will likely be the case in the Senate today.  That's the story it seems to me.  I.e., it's not surprising that Republicans like this bil.  But what are Democrats doing supporting the biggest windfall the nuclear power industry has experienced in modern memory?  

]]> Comment #3 by amazingdrx http://www.grist.org/article/reaction-to-the-energy-bill-from-newspaper-editorial-boards/ Fri, 29 Jul 2005 04:08:45 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/reaction-to-the-energy-bill-from-newspaper-editorial-boards/3 Well jerry.

They are just letting the "free" market work.

 Subsidies to nuke-you-ler and fossil fueled power do not effect the price of energy, right?  

Neo-libertarians are the best friends that neo-conservative corporatists ever had!

]]> Well jerry.

They are just letting the "free" market work.

 Subsidies to nuke-you-ler and fossil fueled power do not effect the price of energy, right?  

Neo-libertarians are the best friends that neo-conservative corporatists ever had!

]]>