The House is set to
vote on an egergy bill. I could not be more conflicted about it.
First, a few details:
The bill includes a slimmed down $8 billion tax package, mostly tax breaks for [the] energy industry
...
The legislation would increase the use of ethanol as a gasoline additive
...
...a provision that would, for the first time, allow oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska
...
Provide a 20 percent tax credit up to $2,000 for homeowners who put in more energy efficient windows, doors and insulation.
There are two major problems with this bill, one of which I am possibly able to overlook under the right circumstances.
The first problem is the tax incentives to energy companies. Now, of course tax breaks aren't really just given out to friends (or at least they're not supposed to be), there's substance behind the break. The tax breaks for the engery companies, the article says, are intended to "spur expansion and modernization of the electric grid and construction of natural gas pipelines to meet growing demand for electricity and gas."
We should not have to give tax incentives to energy companies for them to do this, it's their job- the bigger and better the power grid, the more plentiful and happy their customers. If anything I would say we should impose penalties on energy companies who don't do what is needed to keep the energy infrastructure up to date, that way not only is the government not losing money through yet more tax cuts, it'd actually have an opportunity to be making a bit of extra money.
The second problem, the one I can see myself getting over if certain conditions are met, is the drilling in the ANWR. Now, my initial reaction to drilling in Alaska was absolutely no way man, you leave nature alone. Get your oil elsewhere. But thinking about it more over the past few years, I've lightened up slightly. I still don't like the idea, because it's a depressing reminder of just how inescapable our dependance on oil is, and because it would seriously screw with the biodiversity in the area (and trust me, ask any environmental expert, biodiversity is really really important).
But I said there was a way I'd overlook my objections. I'd do this only if there was a detailed plan to ensure the enviornment was disturbed as little as possible, the current inhabitants accomidated, and a comprehensive exit strategy that outlines exactly how all the fixtures and facilities will be removed and how the environment will be restored so we leave it cleaner than when we got there (something my grandmother always tought me to do).
Now you might cringe at the over-bearing, convoluted nature of that plan. But hey, it's what we have to do. And if the Republicans are going to
please one of their most significant constituants, they'd better seriosuly consider it.
I also said I was torn, not pissed off, over this bill. The increase in use of ethanol included in the bill pleases me to no end. According to the article, it calls for a 1/3 increase (5 billion gallons) of of ethanol use in gasoline anually, but the article doesn't mention a time table. I've always been a proponent of ethanol because if every gallon of gasoline was just 30% ethanol, there would be no need for any adaptors or other changes to normal gas engines, it would decrease the amount of oil we need to take in (by about 30%, I'd say), and it would be an incredible boon to American farmers.
I am also happy about the individual tax break for using energy efficient products in your home, not because I see it as any sort of major political achievment, but because that means I'll be getting a tax break once I own my own home.
