Archives

What Difference Will The US Mid-Term Elections Have on Energy Policy?

Feel free to suggest a redo on the poll - I can see the suggestions of a "mixed response" that happens in politics (i.e. ANWR drilling along with funding of clean coal plants)

Who knows. I doubt there will be any change.

I also don't think there will be much if any real change.
Nice avatar change by the way, Chuck.

I think the dems will make some minor attempts at conservation. However a minor attempt will be worlds more than the current administration has done. To his credit GB the younger did say that our oil habit is a knife to our throats; he didn't really do much about it other than starting a war that cost 3000 soldiers, 20,000 very serious wounds, 600 Billion $ and raised the price of gasoline by about $1 over what is was pre Bush the younger.
If the Dems have any sense they will start small-banning the sale-or taxing the sale of old fashioned light bulbs. They will then push up the CAFE regs. The offer tax credits on new car sales based on EPA mpg, not on Hybrid etc.
They should push wind energy(though I guess Kennedy might be able to block the windfarm off the Mass coast). It will never be much-a % or two, but every little bit helps.
It would be helpfull to encourage USA based manufacturers-like Cummins etc- to produce more efficient made in the USA Diesels of all sizes.
All USA based manufacturers of items(light bulbs, engines, motors, ACs, windmills, solar panels etc) that improve efficiency should be rewarded with tax breaks etc. There probably is something to the idea that more stringent efficiency standards can produce jobs, profit etc. In general I would favor efficiency over pollution regs-burn less oil, you produce less pollution. Same story on alternative sources of liquid fuel-corn,cane, wood based alcohol, biodiesel etc.
Yes, it will lower our standard of living( 2 TVs and a 2200 sq ft house instead of 4 TVs and a 3000 sq ft house) to return manufacturing jobs to the USA. Everything will cost more.
I would also tax "home comsumption". The 1st 4000 sq ft of family housing would be tax free. After that you pay a tax-yearly- on the extra size of your house or houses.
Well, I'm running on. Thanks.
Charlie
PS I would really push NUKES- power plants. I don't see then as any more dangerous than coal fired plants, and they produce zero CO2 if that is a concern. No one has ever died -in the USA- as a result of commercial nuclear power plant radioactivity. Plenty-thousands- of folks have died or suffered morbidity from coal fired plants.

I agree that there should be incentives for companies that produce more efficient items to offset the cost of producing them. I'm not sure about the added tax on large homes though. I think that is already part of the houses assesment. Maybe we need a graduated tax on energy use. X amount of kw/h tax free (or at its current rate). Then after that start to increase the tax rate.