Why do you think Republicans in Congress oppose renewable energy?

Question

Over this past session, Congress had some 13 chances to support renewable energy, as bill after bill was put forward by Democrats. Republicans blocked them all.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/8/13/141033/320

Now 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats have formed the "Gang of 10" to reach a compromise which includes both increased offshore drilling and support for renewable energy products.

Obama immediately praised the compromise. So far McCain has not endorsed it.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/mccain-holds-off-backing-gang-of-10-energy-plan-2008-08-10.html

Republican Policy Committee Chairman Thaddeus McCotter (Mich.) said House Republicans would oppose the New Energy Reform Act in its current form and criticized the bill as too narrow an approach that will raise prices on consumers.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/rep.-mccotter-condemns-gang-of-10s-energy-plan-2008-08-12.html

Coincidentally, Limbaugh and his dittoheads hate the compromise (what a shocker).

Why do you think Republicans in Congress continually oppose renewable energy projects?

Answer 1

They don't.  They just realize that the alternatives are far from being ready to replace oil.  And until they are we need more oil.  Prove me wrong drive up to my house in your solar powered car that can do anything a Ford mustang can.

Answer 2

Dana the problem with legislation is that usually a bill has all kinds of pork barrel spending attached to it.    It's like "support these six bridges to nowhere in Ted Stevens' state and we'll also continue the tax break for wind farms or continue to provide food to the troops."

When it's food for the troops they hold their noses and vote for it.    When it's not an immediate crisis, some of them don't, because of the spending provisions.

We need to reform the way the legislature works.

I actually agree with you about subsidies for renewables, particularly domestic renewables - as a matter of national defense, we should maximize our domestic energy sources, especially renewables.

My issues are (1) Congressmen tack pork spending on to legitimate bills, and then the bills go for an all or nothing, yay or nay vote, and it's not fair to characterize people who voted against the bill because of the pork as being opposed to the good provisions in the bill; and (2) oil and renewables are separate issues, as renewables are generally in the area of power generation, not transportation (and I know that battery operated cars run on electricity but we don't have a lack of generating capacity right now, we just have a poor transmission infrastructure).

Answer 3

I'm a conservative and I certainly don't oppose alternative energy.  What I oppose is gov't subsidizing it and picking winners and losers.  We are now seeing the folly of that with corn based ethanol.

The gov't subsidizes the manufacture of it, and thus more corn is diverted to it instead of being available for food and feed for animals.  Furthermore, other crops are not being grown in favor of corn for fuel.  Thus food prices are climbing.  Corn based ethanol also provides a terrible return on energy.  It takes nearly as much energy to make as we get from it.  Yet this is now the gov't mandated solution and it sucks!

You may have heard of the Pickens Plan.  Build wind turbines in windy areas!  Great.  Go to it Mr. Pickens.  You're a billionaire, go build'em and make even more money!  Make a good business plan and millions including myself will even invest!  Yet instead of doing this, we're all supposed to lobby Congress for him?  Why?  If its such a good plan and makes so much sense, we don't need Congress do we?

I fully support development of alternative energy, by the free market.  I'll even support gov't research on the basic science many forms of alternative energy.

A good example is the internet.  The gov't started the kernal of it as a defense project, but it was the free market that turned it into something the masses could use.

By the way, given current prices of oil, I too favor ending any subsidies given to the oil companies.

Answer 4

They don't. Your accusation is not based on reality. Republicans in Congress and President Bush have supported more alternate energy programs than any other Congressmen or President in history. Get your facts straight and ask yourself why you make up such lies to try to demonize Republicans.

Answer 5

I wouldn't say Republicans are better because some of them are no better than Democrats.  You included the 5 dimwits in the gang of 10.  The question that you should be asking is why do Democrats oppose all forms of energy and prosperity.    Why are Democrats so firmly in the pockets of big Green lobby that they can no longer make sensible decisions, not they were so good in the past either.  Americans are rightly outraged by the Democrats led by elitist Nancy Pelosie and mental deficients like Barbara Boxer that oppose any reasonable solutions to our energy problems.  It is pandering to these politicial interest that has created much of the current problem.  Futher pandering will only deepen the crisis.   The question should be, "When will America wake up and treat these people like the fools they are?"  If we elect Obama, then they will learn a hard lesson about socialism.

Answer 6

The one thing that is strange is that global warming denialists whilst very much wrong about what is going on to the environment often have a much better idea of how to solve global warming than a lot of the people who accept it (not all though).

Until we have better energy storage technologies it is a waste of money to build more wind turbines and solar panels (since they can not possibly solve our problem without improved energy storage technology, once we have that then we can discuss whether they should be built).

Existing wind and solar systems do reduce the CO2 emissions from fossil fuel power plants slightly so there might be some argument for keeping them in use at least until a reliable replacement for the fossil fuels backing them up is built although it may be that a bigger reduction in CO2 emissions could be had by redirecting those subsidy towards nuclear power (although that would require further study that hasn't been done so it's not certain).

Though I do have to admit that renewable energy is very profitable, especially for a company like GE that can also sell backup power and the replacement for the renewables and fossil fuel backup when people figure out that they wasted their money on wind.

Answer 7

First, Republicans support renewables and drilling.  My question to you is why do democrats refuse to allow a vote on drilling?  Perhaps because in May 2007, Nancy Pelosi invested 50-100K in T. Boone Picken’s clean energy fuels corp., CLNE, which is the sole sponsor of a proposal in California to funnel $5 billion in state funds and $5 billion in Federal funds to this corporation which will indirectly help them create a giant wind farm in the Texas panhandle.  

She is not interested in saving the planet.  She is simply interested in influencing the market to make a profit.  Oh and Al Gore is now worth 100 million - but who's counting.

  

Answer 8

Yes thanks to idiot liberal democrats that control all the major political offices in California we have been hit with every energy con game in the industry. The ethanol scam has cost us 20% in gas mileage from the previous substitute MBPP or whatever it was that polluted ground water more than anything ever seen before. Now they are hyping the Exxon answer of the hydrogen highway that is going to cost everybody in the state millions and maybe the rest of the remaining jobs that Pat Brown, Jerry Brown and Gray Davis did not send Overseas. I really can not understand why any working man would ever vote for a democrat because they have shipped more jobs out of the country than any other single group.

If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner.

H.L.Mencken

Answer 9

James W Early -- great H.L. Mencken quote.

Tragic that he isn't alive today to comment on the absurdities of the global warming crowd.  His wit would be a nice addition to the debate.

Thanks for something to comment on.  This question certainly isn't worth the time or effort.

Answer 10

Well I posted the gang of 10 article on my blog over a week ago--

Yes it does have some elements of a "comprehensive" plan-- but the off-shore drilling and on shore drilling is too restrictive-- however it would be a good starting place for a final Bill.

I believe it was Her Majesty-  the honorable Nancy Pelosi who went on vacation-- turned the lights off, turned the electric off, and had security gaurds remove the CSPAN reporters-- sounds like something that would happen in North Korea, or the Russian Congress but not here in the USA.

We need to DRILL where the oil might be --- and WHEREVER it might be --- this includes the Atlantic, the Pacific, Eastern gulf of Mexico, and off the Florida coast toward Cuba.

ANWR should also be explored and drilled-- you really don't need to worry about this happening any time soon. More than 40 government agencies must approve the exploration and drilling permits taking an average of 5-7 YEARS to approve them. Then the environmental lobby steps in with lawsuit after lawsuit --- it takes an ACT of GOD to drill. It's the only Industry I know of that cannot do business without fighting hundreds of government bureaucrats every step of the way. We DESERVE the high fuel prices and the 700 billion per year we give to various dictators around the world to import our oil.

Just read my blog post to get an idea of a REAL comprehensive energy plan.

http://www.neighborsgo.com/index.php?pag...

I don't know where you got the idea that Republicans OPPOSE renewable energy --- we have the largest wind farms in the nation right here in Texas-- and we granted them 5 BILLION dollars for the transmission towers.

EDIT-- thumbs down indicates to me that everything I just posted is TRUE-- let me ask a question -- should oil companies that made about 10% profit be targeted for extra taxes?-- how about pharmaceutical companies, sports celebrities, and fast food chains-- they all make MORE THAN 10% profit. Let's just TAX anyone that makes a profit MORE!-- but wait-- won't they just raise prices to offset the extra tax?? and then YOU pay for the tax.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/29/markets/...

Answer 11

Basically the concept works this way, it is in the United States governments best interest to see that the US stock market is one of the best places to invest your money to see a return on your investment. This basic concept controls a variety of things but none more important than the strength of the American dollar against other forms of currency. Emerging economic powers such as China and India are not going to stop utilizing fossil fuels fuel for their growth. Any legislation that forced US corporations to abide by energy policies in direct competition with foreign entities that do no have to abide by the same energy policies would be at a disadvantage.

Answer 12

Mostly because republicans are in the pockets of big business. So are democrats, just less so.  

Answer 13

Republicans (and some SENSIBLE Democrats) don't oppose renewable energy, but they DO oppose more taxes for something that more and more Americans are realizing to be less than truthful...... that being 'man-did-it' global warming.... or climate change.... or climate stall.... or whatever is in vogue this week.

They (myself included) don't want to be embarrassed by bankrolling another ethanol scam.  Imagine...... we taxpayers have been subsidizing to the tune of $$Billions, something that pollutes even more than regular gasoline.  I really feel sorry for Californians who have been scammed into using even more ethanol than most of the country.  One of the reasons they have some of the highest gasoline prices in the country.

If renewable energy..... wind, solar, wave, geo-thermal.... etc. are so great, then let them stand on their own..... or better yet..... if they need charity let the Warmers and Greens support them out of their private funds.

Answer 14

That can not be true.  Someone keeps quoting Republicans who say that they believe in AGW to stress the point that AGW is not a political issue.  But then again I always thought climate change is a political issue, and these conservatives are just paying lip service to their constituents.  

Answer 15

They don't.  They're for ALL ways of producing energy, not the few that democrats are for.  Sadly many republicans are giving in and accepting the democrat plan just to get something done.  Why is it that only republicans cross the aisle?  Democrats never compromise and never cross the aisle.

I think the best solution is for the government to stay out of the energy market.

Democrats have put in so many obstacles to getting energy that we need lots of stupid bills to take them out.  That's another problem.

And look at all the pork in these bills.  The New ERA has $84 billion in pork for "alternatives" and "renewables."  Code words for wasteful spending.

This is beside the point, but did you know that the mortgage bailout bill has millions in it going to far left groups like ACORN and RAZA??

Answer 16

As I just told you, do you have some that will fill bill and sue's gas tank?  if not shut up until you do.  

Got it.?

Answer 17

Your Democrat took a vacation instead of voting for more energy

Answer 18

Republicans don't want to punish business - business employs people and by doing so, we don't have to pay sky-high taxes to support the people who would be unemployed if all of the taxes and penalties to those who "spread the wealth around" were monetarily punished (taxed).

Republicans have faith in the free market - if the people want renewable fuel - then the market will supply it - but DON'T PUNISH the marketplace by creating wild-a$$ed taxes and penalties!!

We need people who can stand on their own feet in this country - NOT people who depend on the government for all of their needs (the Dems) and who can't think for themselves.

That's not to say that the Repulicans don't practice charity - those who have $$ are the ones who give.  

Answer 19

Because old white people don't like anything new or they dont want to stop something that is making them BILLIONS  

Answer 20

Your wading in political waters that are way WAY over your head.  The short answer is that Republicans are against punishing the oil industry.  It's a great stretch of logic to say that being against certain legislation means Republicans are against renewable energy projects.  

You are the example par excellence of why it's so easy to politically manipulate greens.

Again - the government doesn't STOP anyone from starting a renewable energy company.  Go start one today instead of looking to the government for answers.

Answer 21

I think things will get easier if Democrats drop the windfall tax profits part of the legislation. I don't see a reason to tax them more, but I also don't see a reason they need subsidies. Both parties need to give a little.

Drilling is fine, if it is balanced by a logical energy policy. One thing that should be taken into consideration...when a commodity is plentiful, it is wasted. Well, oil has a way of looking plentiful one year or for 5 years, but not the next year or 5 years. It's a roller coaster ride. We all know it is dropping now, but the decline in prices will be temporary. China and India will continue with exploding growth and the global oil supply overhead will continue to shrink, making it more expensive than it is now. There is little disagreement about that.

Democrats are trying to say, albeit politically, that if we concentrate on renewables with the current high price of carbon based energy, we will move to the alternatives faster and we'll be better off for it.

In the end, we need a plan to get off the roller coaster and help the environment at the same time. It will be long term, but beneficial to us all.