The Oil Drum: Local

Update: 9/17: This legislation passed 236 to 189 the House of Representatives yesterday. The Senate is not scheduled to vote on the same legislation. Instead, it is working on a drafting a different plan that would give a handful of southern states the option to expand offshore drilling. It is questionable whether anything can be passed by year end. Also, President Bush has said he would veto the version passed by the house, if such a plan is passed. (But all the representatives who voted for the legislation can tell their constituents they did so!)

Legislation that would remove the ban on offshore drilling is now being debated in Congress, and can be seen on C-Span. What is involved? The area involved is a band between 50 and 100 miles out, along the East and West coasts. These are areas that may contain a little oil, but are not areas where geological evidence would suggest that a significant amount of oil is likely to be available.

Rep. John Dingell has a long history of opposing fuel-economy increases and other "green" initiatives.  His position as defender of Detroit's remaining auto industry more or less forces him to support the production of whatever vehicles are still profitable there, regardless of what they do to US energy security, balance of trade or global climate.  For the last 20 years or more, this has meant large cars and personal trucks:  the "guzzler" segment.  Because of this, I was surprised and pleased to learn of a proposal from him for a carbon tax and a petroleum tax, to help move the US away from both fossil fuels in general and petroleum in particular.

Both emotions lasted about as long as it took to read the summary.  It does not appear to be a serious basis for initiatives to move away from fossil energy.  Instead, it looks like a straw-man proposal designed to fail, while appearing to promote the interests of union labor in the process.  My final appraisal is "disappointingly cynical".