Monday, January 22, 2007

US House Kills $14 Billion in Oil Subsidies

The new Democrat controlled House of Representatives has rolled back tax breaks to big oil and boosted boosted royalties to the tune of $14 billion dollars in their first 100 hours in office. The bill was passed 264-163, including 62 yes votes from Republicans, and applies over the next 10 years.

Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has also created a new Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, much to the chagrin of some Republican legislators.

Pelosi said the committee would be designed to "raise the visibility" of energy and climate change issues, and that it would not have legislative jurisdiction. Many lawmakers saw it as a way to diminish the influence of veteran lawmakers, such as Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), who in the past has guarded the interests of the big U.S. automakers from his state by opposing higher fuel efficiency standards.

You go girl! Bring on the next 100 hours!


kitimat said...

Big business in the U.S. had even stronger words today...encouraging congress to create a broad cap and trade system for the entire U.S. economy.

USCAP, United States Climate Action Partnership included company CEO's from General Electric, Dupont, Alcoa, Caterpillar, Duke Energy among others.

Along with Environmental leaders the group called for swift legislation capping GHG emmisions and promoting advances in green technology.

Check out their press conference
- go to video/audio
- click on all recent programs
- then USCAP discussion

Hopefully the tide is turning
south of the border!

Hammerhead said...

You crack me up! Don't any of you people understand these companies don't lose any money. They just pass it along to you and me.

Why did RJR buy Nabisco? Why to energy companies own household and food companies? So, no matter what you (liberal) do, the profit margin is always reached by raising the price of everything you buy.

Odiyya said...

whoever said that tackling global warming should mean that companies "lose" money? thats the whole point, it doesn't have to work that way. the cost on a lot of items should go up, then people won't buy them.

If SUVs cost $10,000 more a lot of people wouldn't buy them. if gas costs $1.00 more per litre/gallon, people would buy more fuel efficient cars. that is what should happen, what we don't need is a communist beaucracy that dictates what can and can't be made and bought.

One of the biggest problems in moving forward is that for all peoples flag waving and ranting, we really don't believe in a functioning market, especially conservatives. They believe in self indulgence without consequence. sorry hammerhead, the world can't work that way.

Set the strong rules for business and let it carry on. the sooner carbon instensive products go up in price, the sooner that the market will supply cheaper alternatives that won't destroy the earth's climate. bring it on.

kitimat said...


I don't blame you for being skeptical of corporate motives...but with regards to the USCAP partnership consider this. These companies are agreeing to a legislated CAP and TRADE system. NOT "intensity based targets". A cap and trade system sets concrete targets that cannot be surpassed. This is not corporate trickery.

Each of the CEO's representing these companies have recognized that climate change will eventually cripple the economy. They also recognize that the longer we put off action, the more expensive and harder it will become to slow global warming.

These companies now want the government to create a fair playing field, so that our economy can work towards a solution.