Senate bill wants U.S. oil demand cut by 10 million barrels per day
05-05-2006 | 07:07 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 8
From: Washington DC (NOVA)
Senate bill wants U.S. oil demand cut by 10 million barrels per day
Senate bill wants U.S. oil demand cut by 10 million barrels per day - - Reuters / May 4, 2006 - 4:00 pm - - Source: Automotive News
WASHINGTON -- A group of Senate Republicans and Democrats on Thursday introduced legislation to cut U.S. crude oil demand by 10 million barrels a day over the next 25 years and reduce America's dependence on oil imports.
The legislation is the latest bill to be dropped on the Senate and House floor by lawmakers who are scrambling to show their constituents back home they are doing something to tackle high gasoline prices.
Democrats believe voter anger over soaring pump costs could help them wrestle majority control from Republicans over both chambers in the Congress during this November's mid-term elections.
"The high gas prices we are facing today can only be addressed by a serious, long-term effort to reduce our dependence on foreign oil," said Democrat Evan Bayh of Indiana, a co-sponsor of the legislation, titled the Enhanced Energy Security Act of 2006.
The bill aims to slash U.S. oil consumption, from projected levels, by 2.5 million barrels a day by 2016, 7 million barrels a day by 2026 and 10 million barrels a day by 2031.
The United States currently uses about 21 million barrels of oil a day, with imports meeting about 60 percent of that demand and forecast to increase in the years ahead.
"It's time we take our energy future out of the hands of foreign nations and implement an aggressive national energy plan that returns Americans to the driver's seat," said Republican Norm Coleman of Minnesota.
"This legislation would put our economy on an oil-reducing diet and push to market the alternative fuels and advanced technologies that will end our oil addiction," said Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.
To help reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil by cutting domestic oil consumption, the bill includes programs that will:
Speed the development of new vehicle technologies such as plug-in hybrids and the use of light weight materials in vehicles.
Provide government loan guarantees and competitive grants to automakers and parts manufacturers to convert existing plants or build new facilities to make fuel-efficient vehicles.
Increase access to alternative fuels, such as motor fuel made from 85 percent ethanol, across the country by providing funding for alternative fueling stations.
Provide funds to state programs to encourage motorists to retire gas-guzzling vehicles.
Provide financial incentives to produce cheaper ethanol from crop waste.
In other energy events on Capitol Hill, Democrats introduced companion legislation in the Senate and House to repeal at least $28 billion in tax breaks and subsidies for oil and natural gas companies.
The legislation would not allow the companies to write-off certain drilling costs, repeal the ability of companies to deduct 50 percent the cost of building a new refinery and ends royalty relief for oil and gas production in deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
The bill's sponsors said the tax breaks were not needed with oil companies earning record profits at the expense of drivers paying near-record gasoline prices.
Also, House Majority Leader John Boehner says he still plans to bring a package of yet-to-be-defined energy legislation to the floor in June.
The legislation is the latest bill to be dropped on the Senate and House floor by lawmakers who are scrambling to show their constituents back home they are doing something to tackle high gasoline prices.
Democrats believe voter anger over soaring pump costs could help them wrestle majority control from Republicans over both chambers in the Congress during this November's mid-term elections.
"The high gas prices we are facing today can only be addressed by a serious, long-term effort to reduce our dependence on foreign oil," said Democrat Evan Bayh of Indiana, a co-sponsor of the legislation, titled the Enhanced Energy Security Act of 2006.
The bill aims to slash U.S. oil consumption, from projected levels, by 2.5 million barrels a day by 2016, 7 million barrels a day by 2026 and 10 million barrels a day by 2031.
The United States currently uses about 21 million barrels of oil a day, with imports meeting about 60 percent of that demand and forecast to increase in the years ahead.
"It's time we take our energy future out of the hands of foreign nations and implement an aggressive national energy plan that returns Americans to the driver's seat," said Republican Norm Coleman of Minnesota.
"This legislation would put our economy on an oil-reducing diet and push to market the alternative fuels and advanced technologies that will end our oil addiction," said Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.
To help reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil by cutting domestic oil consumption, the bill includes programs that will:
Speed the development of new vehicle technologies such as plug-in hybrids and the use of light weight materials in vehicles.
Provide government loan guarantees and competitive grants to automakers and parts manufacturers to convert existing plants or build new facilities to make fuel-efficient vehicles.
Increase access to alternative fuels, such as motor fuel made from 85 percent ethanol, across the country by providing funding for alternative fueling stations.
Provide funds to state programs to encourage motorists to retire gas-guzzling vehicles.
Provide financial incentives to produce cheaper ethanol from crop waste.
In other energy events on Capitol Hill, Democrats introduced companion legislation in the Senate and House to repeal at least $28 billion in tax breaks and subsidies for oil and natural gas companies.
The legislation would not allow the companies to write-off certain drilling costs, repeal the ability of companies to deduct 50 percent the cost of building a new refinery and ends royalty relief for oil and gas production in deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
The bill's sponsors said the tax breaks were not needed with oil companies earning record profits at the expense of drivers paying near-record gasoline prices.
Also, House Majority Leader John Boehner says he still plans to bring a package of yet-to-be-defined energy legislation to the floor in June.
05-05-2006 | 07:17 PM
#2
Safety Car
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,426
Likes: 0
From: philly
Well the issue seems to stem over the last 30yrs. Prices are increasing because the current refineries can’t handle the load. There has not been any new refineries built in the US in 30 yrs which begs the question of drilling in Alaska to solve the problem!! More oil from Alaska doesn't change a DAMN thing when the current refineries can't handle the increased load PERIOD to lower prices.
05-06-2006 | 06:19 PM
#7
Safety Car
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,426
Likes: 0
From: philly
Think I saw on VWVortex that the new VW diesels aren't coming for this year( in the new golf) due to new standards in the US etc. so I'd expect the same goes for other companies unless their engines already can.
Trending Topics
05-07-2006 | 01:08 PM
#9
Suzuka Master
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
From: Chicago Suburbs
Originally Posted by biker
The panic over high gas prices is already gone from the headlines - the politicians haven't gotten the word yet. 
You can't legislate cultural norms - only economics will do that.
You can't legislate cultural norms - only economics will do that.
In the case of SUVs/Trucks you can. Does a soccer mom need a Suburban to carry 2 kids around in? No. Legislation for trucks and SUV's has been way too lenient for too many years. Hell the CAFE standard for cars have been nearly the same for the last 20 years.
05-14-2006 | 12:55 PM
#10
go like hell
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 5,154
Likes: 1
From: Anna,OH(home of the honda/acura motors)
Originally Posted by Maximized
In the case of SUVs/Trucks you can. Does a soccer mom need a Suburban to carry 2 kids around in? No. Legislation for trucks and SUV's has been way too lenient for too many years. Hell the CAFE standard for cars have been nearly the same for the last 20 years.
05-15-2006 | 11:36 AM
#11
Race Director
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 14,388
Likes: 632
From: Alexandria, VA
Originally Posted by Maximized
In the case of SUVs/Trucks you can. Does a soccer mom need a Suburban to carry 2 kids around in? No. Legislation for trucks and SUV's has been way too lenient for too many years. Hell the CAFE standard for cars have been nearly the same for the last 20 years.
There are folks who have a need for a gas guzzling Suburban. What you need to do is make it economically hard for the soccer mom to justify the same Suburban - not make the Suburban extinct.
05-15-2006 | 12:33 PM
#12
Suzuka Master
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 3
From: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Originally Posted by biker
There are folks who have a need for a gas guzzling Suburban. What you need to do is make it economically hard for the soccer mom to justify the same Suburban - not make the Suburban extinct.
It's difficult to make it "economically hard" for the soccer mom to justify the suburban, except to raise taxes on gas or institute a "weight tax" or a "engine displacement tax" like they have in other countries.
Raising taxes on gas just pisses off more people since they are bitching already, but i think a "displacement" and/or "weight tax" would work. With a "displacement" tax, it would cover gas guzzling SUVs and cars, while leaving fuel efficient SUV's and cars. It would be totally different from the antiquated "gas-guzzler" tax.
But I really really really doubt something like this would even be proposed, much less become policy, since this country doesn't have the competence to pass "effective" policies. In this country, "effective policy" is an oxymoron.
the other way to do it would be from a marketing perspective. Instead of having anti-smoking or anti-drug commercials, they should do anti-SUV commercials to "popularize" how purchasing an SUV only for status is foolish.
05-15-2006 | 04:02 PM
#13
Senior Moderator
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,904
Likes: 1,672
Originally Posted by mrdeeno
.
Raising taxes on gas just pisses off more people since they are bitching already, but i think a "displacement" and/or "weight tax" would work. With a "displacement" tax, it would cover gas guzzling SUVs and cars, while leaving fuel efficient SUV's and cars. It would be totally different from the antiquated "gas-guzzler" tax.
Raising taxes on gas just pisses off more people since they are bitching already, but i think a "displacement" and/or "weight tax" would work. With a "displacement" tax, it would cover gas guzzling SUVs and cars, while leaving fuel efficient SUV's and cars. It would be totally different from the antiquated "gas-guzzler" tax.
I do believe that the Feds should do more to make public transportation a more attractive commuting option. Specifically, the feds need to offload some of that pork barrel spending (both Dems and Reps are guilty here) and redirect the funds towards transit agencies on the contingency that the recipient transit agencies commit at least a portion of the subsidy towards expanding operations into underserved communities. (This includes restructuring Amtrak into a more efficient operation.)
IMHO and as a daily commuter rail rider, there is just no way to substantially reduce oil demand without addressing and improving the public transportation infrastructure.
05-15-2006 | 05:37 PM
#14
I feel the need...
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 14,957
Likes: 515
From: Motown
Originally Posted by gavriil
Senate bill wants U.S. oil demand cut by 10 million barrels per day
When these clowns in Washington get a clue, we'll all be much better off. I'm not holding my breath though.
05-15-2006 | 08:26 PM
#15
Suzuka Master
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
From: Chicago Suburbs
Originally Posted by biker
You can always legislate that SUVs get 30mpg - you stick some puny 4 cyl in it and it will perform like a slug that no one will buy. So you make Ford and GM go out of business. Not gonna happen.
There are folks who have a need for a gas guzzling Suburban. What you need to do is make it economically hard for the soccer mom to justify the same Suburban - not make the Suburban extinct.
There are folks who have a need for a gas guzzling Suburban. What you need to do is make it economically hard for the soccer mom to justify the same Suburban - not make the Suburban extinct.
Lastly, CAFE affects both GM and Toyota for example. All mfg's will need to raise their standards.
05-15-2006 | 08:54 PM
#16
Suzuka Master
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 3
From: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Originally Posted by Maximized
How about Cylinder Deactivation, 6 speed Autos, Direct Injection, ect. etc???? The technology is out there, but the manufacturers won't implement it unless mandated. Look at all the safety and environmental systems added to cars in the last 30+ years. ABS, Fuel Injection, Seat belts, and Air bags were around for YEARS before the gov't standards forced the manufacturers to use them.
Lastly, CAFE affects both GM and Toyota for example. All mfg's will need to raise their standards.
Lastly, CAFE affects both GM and Toyota for example. All mfg's will need to raise their standards.
This is a consumer driven society, and the reason that certain automakers don't use technology that's available to improve emmissions and/or fuel efficiency is because most consumers don't give enough of a damn. With rising gas prices and more "marketing" about how the environment is being damaged, people MAY eventually open their eyes.
These technologies aren't the key to saving the world from a resource/pollution perspective. They don't address the underlying problem, they just help "alleviate" the effects from the problem. The problem of which I'm speaking is that the U.S. is a country of luxury, conspicuous consumption, and waste, which is why I believe if gas prices remain affordable, people would continue to buy gas-guzzling SUVs and cars until something comes along and significantly HURTS them...and by HURT I mean in their pocketbooks. If gas prices continue to rise, that will cause HURT and in turn, cause consumers to start shunning SUVs for more fuel efficient vehicles, and maybe THEN more automakers will turn to technologies that improve fuel efficiency.
That's why I am against the gov't interfering to try to bring down gas prices. As far as I can see, rising gas prices is the only thing that will "influence" automakers to be more fuel efficient (because it's common sense that the gov't sure as hell doesn't want to raise gas taxes and risk pissing "voters" off).
Call me a cynic, but I don't have much faith in any policy the gov't comes up with, because rather than creating policies that are effective and improve society, politicians are more concerned with not pissing anybody off and losing votes (ie they have become a bunch of pussies. Bush's resolve into going into Iraq, although wrong IMO, was a great showing of gov't BALLZ, which we need more of...but how about showing some resolve that helps the U.S. rather than some other country?).
Last edited by mrdeeno; 05-15-2006 at 08:57 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
cycdaniel
1G TSX Performance Parts & Modifications
8
12-17-2019 10:58 AM
Oakes
Wash & Wax
10
10-12-2015 11:17 AM
detailersdomain
Wash & Wax
0
09-03-2015 10:56 PM