Blog @ MoreWhat.com

By Brian Wagner
Miami
Wagner report - Download (MP3)
Wagner report - Listen (MP3)

The United States plans to spend $600 million in coming years to propel development of renewable fuels and other new energy solutions. The funding goes along with millions that private investors are spending to find ways to cut the nation’s dependence on oil. VOA’s Brian Wagner recently met with business and research leaders striving to find the best new energy solutions.

The future of alternative energy appears to be rich, whether it is the potential of new biofuels, citrus peel or farm waste products to supply new energy sources.

At a recent conference in Florida, green entrepreneurs met with researchers and farmers to plot the industry’s future. Scores of research firms are developing conversion methods to process a variety of raw materials into ethanol. Farmers are finding ways to turn long overlooked products, like livestock manure and non-food crops, into fuel supplies.

Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer told delegates that green energy is creating great new opportunities for the U.S. economy, especially in the farming sector.

“There is no turning back from a future in which more of our energy resources are grown and harvested in a sensible way,” he said. “That means agriculture is going to be right in the middle of the game.”

Schafer said, under a newly approved farm bill, officials plan to spend $600 million over the next five years to develop and implement new energy technologies, including biofuel crops. That comes in addition to $35 million already being spent.

Green entrepreneurs say federal support is crucial to propel development of advanced technologies that are needed for new energy solutions. Federal loans also are an important tool to give nascent projects the chance to develop into successful businesses.

Some business leaders say government spending still is not enough to offset oil expenditures in the United States, which consumes about 20 million barrels of oil each day. Agriculture Secretary Schafer faced some tough questions from green business leaders at the recent conference.

“Investing 30 million, 50 million even 100 million seems very small in comparison with the opportunities and the size of the problem,” said one attendee.

Schafer said he agrees that more money should be spent, and that is why officials are trying to encourage more private investment.

“It is not just a government effort, it is private sector, too,” he says. “But we are not spending enough money. We are just saying let that oil come in from overseas and we are not doing enough about it.”

In Florida, officials are trying to capitalize on the boom in green technology. Governor Charlie Crist has sought to expand energy research programs at state universities and ordered energy companies to begin offering more electricity from renewable sources. He says his goal is to draw green businesses to the state.

“I believe that Florida can be the green technology hub of America, and clearly the equivalent of the Silicon Valley of green,” he says. “Florida can be known as energy and green industry leaders throughout the world.”

Alan Hodges, an agricultural economist at the University of Florida, has been following the renewable energy field for more than 20 years. He says federal and state initiatives have created a unique climate for growth now.

“There is tremendous interest right now,” he says. “I don’t think there has ever been more interest than there is now, and it is all because of high oil prices.”

Government and private sector interest in new energy has come and gone before.

Joseph Weissman of Aurora Biofuels has been researching the potential of growing algae as a potential source of fuel oil since the oil crisis of the late 1970s. As certain algae grow, they produce oils that can be harvested and converted into fuel. He said government funds helped advance his work until gasoline prices dropped a few years later, and public funding disappeared.

He says the involvement of more private money will help ensure the development of new energy technologies into the future.

“That was lacking in the past, it was all government money,” Weissman says. “Plus government money isn’t driven by the same forces. When someone [private investor] has invested money in something they will see it through one way or another. The government may change its mind overnight.”

Researchers say it is difficult to determine whether algae or another technology is the most promising for the future, and when the general public can expect to see the benefits. But they agree that energy costs will continue to remain high, driving further interest in new energy sources in the future.

from MoreWhat.com:

Sure, the Ag Secretary comments on how great renewable energy ops will be for farmers. Don’t take this wrong, farmers have had a tough time and we all benefit from the food they produce but making things like ethanol and raising food prices as well as an alternative energy source that requires more energy to make than you get out of it begs the question. What the hell are we doing that for?
Of the funding mentioned in the article above, it appears the legal scam artists have a $120 million per year from this pork barrel on which to satisfy their thirst for cash. Liberals complain to conservatives about opposing the rush to green and attacking global warming along with the myriad of schemes such rushes create. Conservatives shout at the liberals for crying the sky is falling and we need to drill with little mention of refining capacity. Both sides focus their sound bites on criticizing the other side and little gets done. But please people, slow down on the pork barrel, low probability, high cost waste of money antics like a $600 million giveaway. After all, it is the taxpayers’ money you’re entrusted to use wisely. Ya, like that ever happens.

Stanford Matthews

This is the fifth and final installment of Pelosi’s Folly & Pin the Tail on the Donkey. Since beginning this series of posts Nancy has done some waffling or flip flopping on energy issues. You can probably find your own sources of that news. Suffice it to say Nancy is as misguided as ever. Combine that with the insanity of Senator Harry Reid and others in the Dems party. But before moving on to things like the contentious Democratic Party Convention and placing their ‘hope’ on the celebrity of Barack Obama, here is the final pass on Pelosi’s (energy) Folly.

Speaker Pelosi’s item 6:
6. If House Republicans are for “all of the above,” why do you oppose efforts to protect consumers like price gouging and holding OPEC accountable for price fixing?

from MoreWhat.com:
Here’s another little link for you Nancy. Gasoline Price Gouging Laws Will Not Benefit Consumers And how do you propose to hold OPEC accountable? Producing our own oil is the best way to use less of their’s. But promoting panic solutions will simply trade one problem for another.

Speaker Pelosi’s item 7:
7. When House Republicans were in the majority for 12 years, our dependence on foreign oil escalated. Why didn’t House Republicans do something about America’s energy independence to ensure we wouldn’t reach the energy crisis we’re in now?

from MoreWhat.com:
Here’s a little bibliography for you Speaker Pelosi. You can peruse the Congressional majorities and read about the various oil shortages brought on by tensiions in the Middle East. To blame the GOP as you have specifically in your item 7 is silly. The wake up call for alternatives to the way we use energy had occured as far back as the sixties and seventies and we, as a nation, did nothing or very little. The general public has an equal share in the blame you want to attach for energy problems.

Party Divisions of the House of Representatives (1789 to Present)

Party Division in the Senate, 1789-Present

1967 Oil Embargo

1973 oil crisis

1979 energy crisis

Speaker Pelosi’s item 8:
8. Democrats will continue to push for legislation to end undue speculation in the oil market that many analysts say has increased the price of a barrel of oil. Will House Republicans support it?

from MoreWhat.com:
And as for the speculation concern you have, you may have noticed that without interfering with the markets the price of oil decreased noticeably in recent days and lower demand was one reason given. Painful as it may be, supply and demand and free markets work pretty well. When we reach a point in which we can no longer afford something the demand falls and so does the price. Our country’s long standing love affair with freedom of movement provided by vehicles using internal combustion engines and petroleum got us here. We’ll pay for the privilege until we learn how to deal with it. Waiting for more than 30 years to deal with it has a cost. Blaming everyone you oppose, Nancy, is ridiculous and counter-productive.

As for Speaker Pelosi’s items 9 & 10 we should do what we can to help those who need it. And as for new standards on sources for electric power for public utilities, any mandates from Congress will also bear a price to consumers. Careful what you wish for Nancy.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Three more items from Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s top ten list (sorry, Dave) are as idiotic as others presented in previous posts. In item 3 (below) the Democratic Speaker of the House indicates she favors ‘repealing tax subsidies’ but you can bet she will oppose repealing any taxes. But that is a story for another time. Echoing the Democratic party’s disdain for profitable enterprise she believes the oil companies should be taxed into oblivion as energy policy. She states that ‘Exxon-Mobil is making $1,500 a second’ and implies that is the limit for increasing their tax liability. She fails to mention the staggering tax bill of Exxon Mobil, other oil companies and the tax burden to the American citizens she claims to protect. So here is one excerpt from the Tax Foundation to help you see the other side.

February 2, 2007
ExxonMobil’s Record Profits — And Record Taxes

by Jonathan Williams

Today, ExxonMobil reported the largest corporate profits in U.S. History. From Yahoo Finance:

“Oil giant Exxon Mobil Corp. on Thursday posted the largest annual profit by a U.S. company — $39.5 billion — even as earnings for the last quarter of 2006 declined 4 percent. The 2006 profit topped the previous record, also by Exxon Mobil, of $36.13 billion set in 2005.” [Full story]

While they were recording record profits last year, they were also writing checks to Uncle Sam to the tune of $100.7 billion — two and a half times what they made in net profit. In fact, previous Tax Foundation research found that from 1977 to 2004, federal and state governments extracted $397 billion by taxing the profits of the largest oil companies and an additional $1.1 trillion in taxes at the pump. In today’s dollars, that’s $2.2 trillion.

So Nancy, you know what you can do with your ‘repeal the tax subsidies’ idea.

Top Ten Questions for the House GOP on Energy

08/06/2008

As a small band of House Republicans remain on the House floor to call for “drill only” legislation that would not bring immediate relief to consumers, their constituents deserve to know why their representatives in Congress have failed to support serious, responsible proposals put forward by the New Direction Congress. Americans have a right to know if House Republicans will reverse their opposition to these proposals; will Senate Republicans, including Senator McCain, stop blocking these bills; and will the President sign them?

3. Exxon Mobil announced the highest ever quarterly profit by a U.S. corporation in history last week. With Exxon Mobil making $1,500 a second, how can House Republicans continue to block efforts to repeal tax subsidies to Big Oil?

4. According to the Bush Administration’s own Energy Department, if we repealed the offshore drilling ban today, oil and gas production would not begin there until 2017, and the impact on prices before 2030 would be “insignificant.” Why do House Republicans keep calling for an action that they know won’t solve today’s energy problems?

5. Senator McCain missed two critical votes in the Senate to promote renewable and conservation. The American people have a right to know why he is putting the interests of Big Oil ahead of American consumers. Why is that?

In item number four (above) the wonderful Speaker of the House offers a stunningly stupid question. She suggests favoring independence from foreign oil yet is to short sighted to understand that the US needs to produce crude in America for that to happen. At the same time she wants to force American oil interests to drill on land for which they currently hold leases. It is fine to want to collect royalties that may be owed to the American tax payer from oil companies holding the leases but forcing companies to drill regardless of the probability for success makes no sense. While payoffs from domestic production may not have an immediate effect on prices at the pump, Ms Pelosi, failing to do so will find us in the same boat on imported oil decades in the future.

This blog opposes oil production in ANWR but primarily due to the fact that there are other locations with more promise that should be tapped first. It would be nice if all concerned could develop effective strategies for what to do when things go wrong…. and they will, they always do. Drill domestically where we can. Have contingencies in place for correcting errors effectively. Increase refining capacity to a level that approaches balance between supply and demand. Add this to the other measures like alternative energy sources and conservation, etc., but remember that only non-petroleum sources will not effect prices at the pump immediately either. Nothing will solve the energy problems immediately. And fawning over ethanol which currently requires more energy to produce than it provides as well as other pie in the sky solutions is irresponsible as well.

Part of what Pelosi says about the long wait for results from drilling ANWR is true. But what she fails to mention is why. Much of what would slow results from drilling in ANWR is government, politics, beauracracy and potential legal action associated with the drilling. Check it out yourself by Pelosi’s own reference both from the Energy Dept and US News.

Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Arctic Drilling Wouldn’t Cool High Oil Prices

Of the ten years it would take to begin oil production in ANWR according to Pelosi (and these sources) she fails to mention a two to three year wait to obtain the oil leases and a one to two year wait to develop a plan and get BLM approval. That would be half of the wait to which Pelosi alludes. The point is, this is merely political theatrics by Pelosi, nothing more, nothing less.

And item five (above) by Pelosi does not even merit a response. The leap between item five’s first and second sentence not to mention her failing to connect the dots is as stupid as the three word question with which she finishes that item.

To be continued……

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Nan on drilling: No longer the hoax I knew  (Michelle Malkin)

Top Ten Questions for the House GOP on Energy

08/06/2008

As a small band of House Republicans remain on the House floor to call for “drill only” legislation that would not bring immediate relief to consumers, their constituents deserve to know why their representatives in Congress have failed to support serious, responsible proposals put forward by the New Direction Congress. Americans have a right to know if House Republicans will reverse their opposition to these proposals; will Senate Republicans, including Senator McCain, stop blocking these bills; and will the President sign them?

2. Releasing a small amount of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve has proven in the past to be a critical way to reduce energy prices in the short term used in 1991, 2000 and 2005. Why not support Democrats’ effort to free a small amount of the taxpayer-funded government stockpile to influence the price of the pump within days?

Nancy, this one’s easy. All anyone has to do is check the Petroleum Navigator at the Energy Dept to view prices during the SPR taps you cite. (no noticeable difference in price)

Petroleum Navigator

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

from republicanleader.house.gov…..

Boehner on GOP Energy Plan: “If We Get a Chance to Have a Debate & A Vote, We Will Win & the American People Will Win”
On the Radio, GOP Leader Exposes Pelosi Doublespeak Plan on Gas Prices

Washington, Aug 8 - In a radio interview this morning on the Don Wade and Roma Morning Show in Chicago, House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) discussed Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) plan, reported in the Politico, to allow her Democratic colleagues to portray themselves publicly as pro-drilling if it helps them politically. The interview comes after the entire GOP leadership team sent a letter to each and every House Democratic Member yesterday, asking them to join the historic energy protest on the House floor started last week by House Republicans. In his interview, Boehner also spoke about his return to the Capitol today to rejoin his colleagues on the floor, Republicans’ “all of the above” energy plan, and the “commonsense plan” to lower gas prices Speaker Pelosi promised the American people 834 days ago. Key excerpts and audio from Boehner’s interview follow:

BOEHNER ON PELOSI’S PLAN TO “HAVE IT BOTH WAYS” ON GAS PRICES:

“What she is basically telling them is you can have it both ways. You can be out there for a drilling plan and be where your constituents are but don’t worry, I’ll never bring [a bill] up. That’s just not going to work. The American people are on to this game of saying one thing in Washington and saying something else back home. And I think there are a number of vulnerable Democrats who want a vote, but so far they’ve been protecting the Speaker. They all voted to adjourn last Friday without a vote. They voted to table our plan on a number of occasions over the last month and they’re helping her. And at the end of the day, it isn’t what you say, it’s what you do and frankly they’ve been aiding and abetting Pelosi, Reid and Obama’s plan to make sure there is never a vote on drilling.” (AUDIO)

BOEHNER ON SPEAKER PELOSI BLOCKING A VOTE TO LOWER GAS PRICES & HER MYSTERIOUS “COMMONSENSE PLAN”:

“We’ve got an all of the above plan that says we need more conservation, more biofuels, speed up the development of alternative sources of energy, speed up the permitting of nuclear electric facilities and more American-made oil and gas and she knows that our American Energy plan, it will pass on the floor of the House. 834 days ago, Nancy Pelosi said on April 24, 2006, ‘I have a commonsense plan to lower gas prices,’ so I sent her a letter 108 days ago on April 22 this year and asked where is your commonsense plan to lower gas prices? Still haven’t seen the commonsense plan to lower gas prices in America.” (AUDIO)

BOEHNER ON HIS RETURN TO THE CAPITOL TO REJOIN HIS COLLEAGUES & THE IMPORTANCE OF THE HISTORIC GOP PROTEST:

“I’m at the Cincinnati airport as we speak getting ready to get on a plane to go back to Washington because I’ve decided that today I’m going to take part in our revolt. I helped start it last Friday and our members have been on the floor every day and we’re going to be on the floor every day until Nancy Pelosi gives us a vote on our America Energy plan… These high gas prices, it’s not just the people at the pump. Everything that we buy has to be delivered somewhere and so it is the cost of food it is the cost of the goods and services we buy. And it’s not just hurting American families, it’s hurting small businesses around America. And we’re going to keep this protest going because there is no way that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama can stand in the way of the will of the American people. The American people want us to deal with this, they want us to deal with it in a comprehensive way. We have a plan and all we’re asking for is a vote. We’re not asking them to pass it. All we’re asking is give us a fair chance and a vote on our plan. And I’ll tell you right now, it will pass. ” (AUDIO)

BOEHNER ON GIVING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THE VOTE ON ENERGY THEY WANT & DESERVE:

“Listen, I’ve seen the American system work and when the American people speak up and demand something, there is no way the Congress will defy them. When the American people get engaged, the Congress will do what they want. And what we’re asking for is for Nancy Pelosi to call the Congress back, let’s have a real debate over energy, real votes, and we want a vote on our American Energy plan, our all of the above plan and we will win. I’ll just guarantee you, if we get a chance to have a debate and a vote, we will win and the American people will win.” (AUDIO)

BOEHNER ON THE HISTORIC GOP ENERGY PROTEST ON THE HOUSE FLOOR:

“There are no cameras, there are no tv lights, but there are Americans who are visiting the Capitol who are witnessing an historic event because we’re having a real revolt over the fact that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama will have nothing to do with a vote to bringing more American energy to the market to help lower gas prices. ” (AUDIO)

Top Ten Questions for the House GOP on Energy

08/06/2008

As a small band of House Republicans remain on the House floor to call for “drill only” legislation that would not bring immediate relief to consumers, their constituents deserve to know why their representatives in Congress have failed to support serious, responsible proposals put forward by the New Direction Congress. Americans have a right to know if House Republicans will reverse their opposition to these proposals; will Senate Republicans, including Senator McCain, stop blocking these bills; and will the President sign them?

1. House Democrats have put forward 13 major proposals that would increase supply, reduce prices, protect consumers and transition America to a clean, renewable energy-independent future. Each time a majority of House Republicans have voted against these proposals. How can Republicans claim to want to help consumers and businesses when they oppose these policies?

First of all Speaker Pelosi the legislation passed so what are you complaining about? The President signed it into law when it landed on his desk. There were at least 331 amendments submitted. As people have said before, there are two things you don’t want to see how they’re made, laws and sausage. It is not unusual for politicians, yourself included, to vote for or against legislation for purely political reasons. It’s nothing new, it is just how sausage laws are made. It is also possible that members of the GOP voted against your touted legislation because it was a bad bill. Whenever you force business or the consuming public to submit to your demands there is a price tag. For instance, the costs asociated with legislation may outweigh any benefit intended. The excerpt below from the Public Law which is your item one is a good example of little or no benefit from the cost of the legislation to businesses and consumers.

“(2) Fuel economy standards for automobiles.–
“(A) Automobile fuel economy average for model
years 2011 through 2020.–The Secretary shall prescribe
a separate average fuel economy standard for passenger
automobiles and a separate average fuel economy standard
for non-passenger automobiles for each model year
beginning with model year 2011 to achieve a combined
fuel economy average for model year 2020 of at least 35
miles per gallon for the total fleet of passenger and
non-passenger automobiles manufactured for sale in the
United States for that model year.
“(B) Automobile fuel economy average for model
years 2021 through 2030.–For model years 2021 through
2030, the average fuel economy required to be attained
by each fleet of passenger and non-passenger automobiles
manufactured for sale in the United States shall be the
maximum feasible average fuel economy standard for each
fleet for that model year.
“(C) Progress toward standard required.–In
prescribing average fuel economy standards under
subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall prescribe annual
fuel economy standard increases that increase the
applicable average fuel economy standard ratably
beginning with model year 2011 and ending with model
year 2020.

It appears the fuel economy standards you are so happy with will not provide improvements any time soon. And even by 2020 or beyond or even the next few years if it were likely, 35 mpg will not solve much.

The other items in your ‘background’ list are quite repetitive. You mention energy efficient homes and buildings more than once but it does beg the question about existing homes. Are your new standards practical for new AND existing homes? You may have a point about royalties owed to the American taxpayer. But proving price gouging or taxing oil companies more than the billions they pay already will only be passed to the consumer or cause reductions in supply. Trying to control investment speculation, tapping the strategic reservce or forcing oil companies to drill anywhere are lame proposals. If anyone cares to support parts of the ‘13 proposals’ fashioned by the Democrats in the House, knock yourself out.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

This is the first of a multipart series inspired by an entry on Speaker Pelosi’s website. The folly that is Pelosi must be challenged both on serious grounds as well as for its entertainment value. Apparently the major thrust for Pelosi’s statements rely on the assumption that legislation claimed to be for the benefit of the American citizen must be enacted whether their is any basis in fact for the expressed claims. Pelosi’s entry from her website is posted in full below. The hyperlinked text will take you to the source. In the next post item one will be examined and subsequent items will be treated in later posts. For now you can read the offering from Pelosi either here or at her website. Perhaps you can offer opinions of your own in response to her statements.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Top Ten Questions for the House GOP on Energy08/06/2008

As a small band of House Republicans remain on the House floor to call for “drill only” legislation that would not bring immediate relief to consumers, their constituents deserve to know why their representatives in Congress have failed to support serious, responsible proposals put forward by the New Direction Congress. Americans have a right to know if House Republicans will reverse their opposition to these proposals; will Senate Republicans, including Senator McCain, stop blocking these bills; and will the President sign them?

1. House Democrats have put forward 13 major proposals that would increase supply, reduce prices, protect consumers and transition America to a clean, renewable energy-independent future. Each time a majority of House Republicans have voted against these proposals. How can Republicans claim to want to help consumers and businesses when they oppose these policies?

2. Releasing a small amount of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve has proven in the past to be a critical way to reduce energy prices in the short term used in 1991, 2000 and 2005. Why not support Democrats’ effort to free a small amount of the taxpayer-funded government stockpile to influence the price of the pump within days?

3. Exxon Mobil announced the highest ever quarterly profit by a U.S. corporation in history last week. With Exxon Mobil making $1,500 a second, how can House Republicans continue to block efforts to repeal tax subsidies to Big Oil?

4. According to the Bush Administration’s own Energy Department, if we repealed the offshore drilling ban today, oil and gas production would not begin there until 2017, and the impact on prices before 2030 would be “insignificant.” Why do House Republicans keep calling for an action that they know won’t solve today’s energy problems?

5. Senator McCain missed two critical votes in the Senate to promote renewable and conservation. The American people have a right to know why he is putting the interests of Big Oil ahead of American consumers. Why is that?

6. If House Republicans are for “all of the above,” why do you oppose efforts to protect consumers like price gouging and holding OPEC accountable for price fixing?

7. When House Republicans were in the majority for 12 years, our dependence on foreign oil escalated. Why didn’t House Republicans do something about America’s energy independence to ensure we wouldn’t reach the energy crisis we’re in now?

8. Democrats will continue to push for legislation to end undue speculation in the oil market that many analysts say has increased the price of a barrel of oil. Will House Republicans support it?

9. Democrats are committed to helping families across America who struggle to pay their home heating bills during the winter months through the LIHEAP program. Will House Republicans support it? Will Senate Republicans stop blocking it? Will John McCain vote for it? And will President Bush sign it?

10. House Democrats have reiterated their support for a Renewable Electricity Standard to transition electricity sources to renewables. Will House Republicans support this effort?

Background

A list of the 13 measures that large percentages of House Republicans voted against:

* Comprehensive energy legislation that includes the first new vehicle efficiency standards in 32 years, saving families up to $1,000 a year at the pump. [93 percent, Vote 1140, 12/6/07, HR 6; 50.3 percent, Vote 1177, 12/18/07, HR 6]

* Tax incentives for renewable electricity, energy and fuel from America’s heartland, as well as for plug-in hybrid cars, and energy efficient homes, buildings, and appliances — four times in just the last 18 months. [82 percent, Vote 344, 5/21/08, HR 6049; 91 percent, Vote 84, 2/27/2008; 93 percent, Vote 1140, 12/6/07, HR 6; 95 percent, Vote 835, HR 2776]

* Investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy, including solar, biofuels, hydropower, and geothermal energy, as well as new vehicle technology and energy efficient buildings and homes, with a 50 percent increase over the President’s request. [56 percent, Vote 641, 7/17/07, HR 2641]

* Landmark energy efficiency standards for buildings, homes, appliances, and lighting to save consumers $400 billion through 2030. [93 percent, Vote 1140, 12/6/07, HR 6; 50.3 percent; Vote 1177, 12/18/07, HR 6]

* Requiring that 15 percent of American electricity come from renewable energy by 2020. [83 percent, Vote 827, 8/4/07, amendment to HR 3221]

* Reducing transit fares for commuter rail and buses and expanding service through grants to transit agencies. [52 percent, Vote 467, 6/26/08, HR 6052]

* Responsible drilling in Alaska in the National Petroleum Reserve (NPR-A). [86 percent, Vote 511, 7/17/08, HR 6515]

* Requiring oil companies to drill on 68 million acres they already control. [94 percent, Vote 469, 6/26/08, HR 6251]

* Releasing a small portion of the government’s oil stockpile, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to bring down gasoline prices. [81 percent, Vote 527, 7/24/08, H.R. 6578]

* Cracking down on price gouging oil companies that artificially inflate the price of energy. [74 percent, Vote 448, 6/24/08, HR 6346]

* Repealing unnecessary subsidies for the top five oil companies earning record profits — four times over the last 18 months. [91 percent, Vote 84, 2/27/2008; 93 percent, Vote 1140, 12/6/07, HR 6; 95 percent, Vote 835, HR 2776; 81 percent, Vote 40, 1/18/07, HR 6]

* Recouping royalties that oil companies owe American taxpayers for drilling on public lands. [86 percent, Vote 832, 8/4/07, HR 3221; 81 percent, Vote 40, 1/18/07, HR 6]

* Curbing excessive speculation in the energy futures markets [69 percent, Vote 540, 7/30/08, HR 6604]

Trackposted to The Pink Flamingo, Woman Honor Thyself, and Right Truth Nuke’s, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Shadowscope, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Cao’s Blog, Dumb Ox Daily News, Conservative Cat, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

US Protests China’s Visa Refusal for Olympian Joey Cheek

By VOA News
The United States is formally protesting China’s decision to deny a visa to U.S. Olympic gold medalist and Darfur anti-violence campaigner Joey Cheek.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Wednesday the U.S. is disturbed to learn that China has refused his visa.

Cheek, a speedskater who competed in the 2006 Winter Olympics, had planned to go to Beijing to support Olympic athletes who are members of Team Darfur. The group aims to call attention to the humanitarian crisis in Sudan’s Darfur region.

China is a major investor in Sudan and has come under increasing pressure to help end the violence in Darfur.

International experts say more than 200,000 people have died and some 2.5 million have been displaced from their homes since Darfur rebel groups rose up against the Sudanese government in 2003.

Sudan says Western governments and media have exaggerated the scale of the conflict.

from MoreWhat.com:

…and Nancy Pelosi chimes in (of course)….

Pelosi Calls on President Bush to Secure Entry of Joey Cheek to Beijing Olympic Games Wednesday, August 6, 2008

Contact:Brendan Daly/Nadeam Elshami, 202-226-7616

Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi released the following statement after the Chinese government revoked a visa for Olympic gold medalist and Team Darfur co-founder Joey Cheek:

“The Chinese government’s decision to bar Olympic gold medalist Joey Cheek from attending the Olympics because of his advocacy for Darfur is reprehensible. This action by Beijing’s leaders is part of an orchestrated campaign to deny entry to individuals because of their political views, beliefs, writings, association, religion, and ethnicity.

If an Olympic athlete, past or present, wishes to attend the Olympics no one should find that unusual or controversial. But if that athlete has chosen to add politics or activism or controversy to their resume’, is it surprising that the host country for the Olympics would refuse to let them enter the country? There have always been controversial overtones associated with the Olympic games. In a perfect world, this athletic event would be simply about sport and competition. It is not a surprise that China refused Joey Cheek’s visa. It is not a surprise that the White House expressed they are disturbed (ya, right) about Cheek being barred from China. And even less of a surprise is that Speaker Nancy Pelosi would offer her two cents on the matter.

Hey Joey, if you want ot be involved in sport, don’t make it political. Hey China, if you don’t want to draw attention to your political choices, don’t bar Joey. Hey White House, it was essentially required for you to respond (enough said). Hey Nancy, you have time to chime in on Joey Cheek but not attend to energy and other urgent matters related to what should be your real job or responsibility.

From this blog, on the energy issue and the one aspect of oil, build some refineries for converting oil to gasoline, etc., before you focus all your thoughts on drilling. On the drilling, fine, drill. Drill to your hearts content. But, up front, stop saying everything will be fine and no harm will come from drilling. Put some measures in place for what will be done to correct errors if you are wrong. And don’t forget about the refining. As for the alternative sources…. forget about it. You have for 30 or 40 years and so has the public. Only crisis will bring alternatives, as always. So forget about the alternatives. None have been brought forward yet and will not likely be for many decades to come. Remember, if you drill like there’s no tomorrow but fail to refine what you drill it is pointless, except for investors.

Go ahead, tell me I’m wrong.

Stanford Matthews