House shifts $16 billion toward renewable energy!
Republicans called it a "no-energy bill" because it lacks new drilling incentives, and they derided the new emphasis on renewables as "green pork." The White House threatened to veto the bill on concerns that it could boost energy prices.
Didn't Bush say that the USA is addicted to oil and needs to find alternate energy sources? Or was he just refering to ethanol?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070805/pl_n...
(sorry if this is a repeat, I posted it in the wrong category)
2007-08-05 06:02:20 · 14 answers · asked by R8derMike 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
well, Bush admits that America is addicted to fossil fuels but a pusher doesn't want the addict cured of the addiction.
2007-08-05 06:07:22 · answer #1 · answered by nebtet 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Bush is the greenest president we have ever had. Did you know his ranch in texas is on solar and that the truck he drives down there is on alternate fuel. He also had some solar installed at the white house. Bush is pro alternate energy, he just recognizes the fact that america is unable and unwilling to do it right now. These technologies still need major work before they can become our primary energy sources. The bill also contains a number of punitive energy use taxes and price controls similar to ones that resulted in an oil shortage in the 70's. I agree with Bush, its a bad bill, and I am a alternate fuels researcher. I would love to see more money placed in the alternate energy research arena. But we dont need all of the other garbage they heaped into this bill.
2016-05-19 04:32:29 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Before you all condemn the bill, or condemn the President for a threatened veto, it would be wise to look at the bill and see just what kind, if any, earmarks for unrelated things are hidden in the bill. I was watching cspan last night for a little bit, and saw a republican congressman from Arizona trying to get some explanations as to why there were so many large earmarks in the defense spending bill that didn't have anything to do with defense. He was going after dems and repubs alike and was getting no good answers.
2007-08-05 06:52:43 · answer #3 · answered by madd texan 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
These are all Big Oil people, they aren't interested in changing the status quo, and will continue to blame high prices on the Arabs, and OPEC. They have had record profits for years, and continue to get tax breaks for Not producing oil from certain wells.
2007-08-05 06:08:00 · answer #4 · answered by thehermanator2003 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I don't think he has anything against alternative energy. I like my oil. Give me more oil. We have plenty of oil here in our own country that we can go drill for. There happens to be one little obstacle in the way. These are the same idiots that wants to punish capitalism. The oil companies are in bussiness to make a profit just like any other business. Go to hell you socialist bastards.
2007-08-05 06:10:32 · answer #5 · answered by trf6x6 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
It would have been passed if it included new drilling options.
The environmentalists don't want drilling in certain areas under any circumstance, even if it means higher oil prices.
2007-08-05 06:10:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'm guessing it's because the oil companies own the present occupiers of the White House.
2007-08-05 06:06:30 · answer #7 · answered by redphish 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
bush likes OIL, how could we possible get any energy from the sun or wind. We'll never get any greener with the likes of bush in office.
2007-08-05 06:09:17 · answer #8 · answered by jpknute1 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Politicians do not want solutions that put no money into the pockets of their contributors. That means they love ethanol, and hate solar and wind.
2007-08-05 06:08:21 · answer #9 · answered by bullwinkle 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Most of them have strong ties to the oil industry -- which of course would be opposed to non-fossil-fuel alternatives.
2007-08-05 06:07:00 · answer #10 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋