Thursday, December 06, 2007

Hamstringing the Energy Bill

House approves big energy bill
"[Pelosi's] decision to insist on including the tax increases on oil companies — costing them $13.5 billion in taxes over 10 years — surprised even some environmentalists and set the stage for a contentious fight in the Senate where Republican leaders have indicated they will try to strip it from the bill."

So here is the question. Did strategists choose to add the 13.5 Billion Dollar issue in order to kill the bill in Senate OR did they put it in to give Republicans something to cut?

I'm not sure how I feel about this bill, but lessening our dependence on foreign energy sources sounds pretty appealing. I wonder if the bill's emphasis on bio-diesel and corn-derived ethanol is really a long term environmentally sound strategy or if those persuasive corn growing conglomerates are at it again. I hate it when the government pens in science with all of their money and incentives. I would much rather the government throw more money into public transportation and research into renewable energy resources to fuel our lives in general (and perhaps electric cars) than into troubled yet lucrative, existing areas of fuel creation.


cymberleah said...

Public transportation is silly. There's a nice run of tracks on the Eastside, right by the freeway, running to, through, and near every major Eastside city... that Sims wants to dig up and put a footpath in instead.

Now see, I like trails and all, but I'd really like some rail service that decreases road congestion, pollution, and makes the Metro system over here a bit less of a joke. I think that's just a little more useful than a pan-suburban hike.

qtilla said...

Sims is a family friend. Nice guy, good intentions.

But I'd like a nice train. Several actually. In fact, I'd take a crappy train over nothing.

cymberleah said...

Oh, I'm sure good intentions. Like I said, I like trails. I think a bike trail from Woodinville to Renton could be awesome, like the one from Redmond to Bothell.

But I would greatly adore a commuter train, whereas I would only occasionally like a tran-city trail from May to September. I like things more based on how useful they are to me, and a train line that eases stupid traffic five days a week, versus a trail I use twice a year? Train wins, hands down.

I like the idea of train + trail, I think it's pretty. Just, train first, or concurrent with adding the trail. Not trail, tear out train tracks, and add them in ten years from now, maybe.

I am actually rather quite enamored by the idea of a commuter train on those tracks. I envision nice stopping points in Overlake, Totem Lake, Renton, Woodinville.... toss in a couple park and rides and a few more buses to ferry people across I-90 and 520, and you've got prettier traffic so quickly. A couple rail lines to downtown Bellevue, Redmond, and Bothell...

Ok, enough dreaming. But it could be so nice.