On "Gasoline for America's Security Act of 2005 - H.R.3893"
(Double-posted to my DJ and LJ because it's that damn important.)
Spurred to action by the aftermath of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the House has valiently taken up a comprehensive act to address the fuel demands of America. The act notes the extreme costs of fuel for the average household, the spike in fuel usage, and the grievous price-gouging which was uncovered recently.
In response, the act proposes to spend more money and coddle more petroleum companies.
The general gist is that the government must encourage new refinery construction, which will increase supply and drive down price. The authors propose to expedite the siting process by allowing for "reformed" regulations of refineries on federal lands -- creative language for sidestepping protective measures for our national property, while allowing private companies to step in at a profit. The act also authorizes the Department of Energy to compensate such refineries for "certain delays that are beyond their control", including regulatory delays -- more public money to private enterprise.
GAS additionally instructs the Environmental Protection Agency to reform its implementation of the New Source Review program, which requires sources to use certain pollution control technology if, in building new facilities or updating old ones, emissions rise above permissable levels. Despite the fairly obvious intent of this program, the authors of GAS state "The NSR program was never meant to be an emission-reduction program", and direct the EPA to exempt "modest plant modifications".
This is not the only questionable wording, however. GAS yet again attempts to slide the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline under public radar, guaranteeing loans for the building thereof. The act authorizes a fund to expand the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. In other money-intensive plans, the Department of Energy is directed to create awareness campaigns to inform the public of gas-usage habits, and institute a study to investigate "using the Internet to facilitate vanpooling and carpooling".
If this sounds like placatory bs which effectively does nothing, that's because it is. There are, admittedly, nods to the environmental sector: mention of more hydrogen infrastructure investigation, as well as grants and loans for state carpooling projects. These hardly counteract the aforementioned proposals, however, which, true to their stated intent, would encourage petroleum production -- at taxpayer expense.
What GAS fails to acknowledge is that, like bad traffic, the problem doesn't go away when one increases accomodation. Expand roads, and traffic will increase to fill them within a few years. Expand gas supply, and gas consumption will continue unabated. The country does not need ads to inform the public that cars use gas, and that Hummers use alot of gas. Any regular driver knows perfectly well that walking, biking, or carpooling reduces pollution, and that speeding or idling increases it.
Try again, Congress. While certain upper echalon officials would undoubtedly benefit from this legislation, your constituents aren't getting much.
(Based on http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/news/Gas_Act_sbs.pdf)
Don't just read this and fume. Write your House representatives, tell them what you think. It's as easy as an e-mail; check out http://www.congress.org/. Hell, you can even just copy my text. It's important, now.
Spurred to action by the aftermath of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the House has valiently taken up a comprehensive act to address the fuel demands of America. The act notes the extreme costs of fuel for the average household, the spike in fuel usage, and the grievous price-gouging which was uncovered recently.
In response, the act proposes to spend more money and coddle more petroleum companies.
The general gist is that the government must encourage new refinery construction, which will increase supply and drive down price. The authors propose to expedite the siting process by allowing for "reformed" regulations of refineries on federal lands -- creative language for sidestepping protective measures for our national property, while allowing private companies to step in at a profit. The act also authorizes the Department of Energy to compensate such refineries for "certain delays that are beyond their control", including regulatory delays -- more public money to private enterprise.
GAS additionally instructs the Environmental Protection Agency to reform its implementation of the New Source Review program, which requires sources to use certain pollution control technology if, in building new facilities or updating old ones, emissions rise above permissable levels. Despite the fairly obvious intent of this program, the authors of GAS state "The NSR program was never meant to be an emission-reduction program", and direct the EPA to exempt "modest plant modifications".
This is not the only questionable wording, however. GAS yet again attempts to slide the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline under public radar, guaranteeing loans for the building thereof. The act authorizes a fund to expand the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. In other money-intensive plans, the Department of Energy is directed to create awareness campaigns to inform the public of gas-usage habits, and institute a study to investigate "using the Internet to facilitate vanpooling and carpooling".
If this sounds like placatory bs which effectively does nothing, that's because it is. There are, admittedly, nods to the environmental sector: mention of more hydrogen infrastructure investigation, as well as grants and loans for state carpooling projects. These hardly counteract the aforementioned proposals, however, which, true to their stated intent, would encourage petroleum production -- at taxpayer expense.
What GAS fails to acknowledge is that, like bad traffic, the problem doesn't go away when one increases accomodation. Expand roads, and traffic will increase to fill them within a few years. Expand gas supply, and gas consumption will continue unabated. The country does not need ads to inform the public that cars use gas, and that Hummers use alot of gas. Any regular driver knows perfectly well that walking, biking, or carpooling reduces pollution, and that speeding or idling increases it.
Try again, Congress. While certain upper echalon officials would undoubtedly benefit from this legislation, your constituents aren't getting much.
(Based on http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/news/Gas_Act_sbs.pdf)
Don't just read this and fume. Write your House representatives, tell them what you think. It's as easy as an e-mail; check out http://www.congress.org/. Hell, you can even just copy my text. It's important, now.