Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama needs to repudiate the energy bill he voted for

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
nebula Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 03:10 PM
Original message
Obama needs to repudiate the energy bill he voted for
this is a major sticking point for me.

Obama is to very pro-ethanol, as outlined on his website. He voted in favor of the recent energy bill which mandates massive increases in ethanol production. On the campaign trail he talks a lot about doing something about the skyrocketing food prices but he doesn't seem to realize that he is the one who helped create those high prices with his yes vote. Hillary voted against it.

If Hillary were a competent campaigner, she would focus on this very legitimate issue much more than she has, and how the bill and Obama's vote for it actually harms working families because it does nothing to reduce gas prices all while pushing food prices through the roof. Instead she chose to stick to the Mark Penn strategy of gotcha politics. Obama thanks you for not drawing attention to his major weaknesses on the issues.

I'm going to have a hard time supporting him in the GE if he doesn't admit his mistake on the ethanol issue. Because if he gets into the WH and continues to support it, it will just make the energy crisis worse for all of us.






In December (2007) Congress passed an energy bill that mandates a fivefold increase in ethanol production by 2022 to decrease the nation's dependence on oil. But, despite a vigorous defense by farmers and ethanol firms Wednesday, there were signs in both parties and both chambers that Washington's love affair with ethanol may have just been a fling.

Rep. Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican, on Wednesday called for a repeal of government incentives designed to boost ethanol production, calling them "a classic case of the law of unintended consequences." "Congress surely did not intend to raise food prices by incentivizing ethanol, but that's precisely what's happened," Flake said in a statement. Earlier in the week Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Texas Republican, proposed freezing the ethanol production mandate at current levels.

Senate Democrats are expected to call for similar measures Thursday at a hearing on food prices before Congress' Joint Economic Committee. Options under consideration include suspending the tariff on imported ethanol, which would allow U.S. firms to import Brazilian ethanol at much lower costs. Brazilian ethanol is made from sugar and costs about a third as much to produce as the corn-based version.

CNN



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
1. I hope hill announces her opposition to corn based ethanol in Indiana today and keeps talking about
right through Monday night!!!!

You are correct of course that corn based ethanol isn't a very efficient use of resources. Sugar beets or cane sugar is much more cost effective, and wouldn't drive up the cost of food grains.

However, I'm sure Hill won't say that in Indiana. They grow a lot of corn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nebula Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. I thought Obama said he would put an end
to the influence of corporate lobbyists and special interests in Washington?

Except the ones he himself is beholden to, right?



And ethanol is completely worthless as an alternative energy source.
It takes more than an gallon of energy to produce a gallon of ethanol(!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I just read a study on that and the conclusion was that, no. you actually end up with a net gain.
Even with corn based ethanol.
However, it is much less efficient than beets or cane.
And corn based drives up food prices.

Hillary already had 8 years in the White House and corporate lobbyists and the corporate interest made huge gains.
It's time to let somebody else fuck things up.

By the way, there is no such measure as a "gallon of energy."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Poor production of ethanol is not the same as ethanol being a poor fuel.
Right now, I'm pretty excited about alge biofuels.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
2. As long as Iowa has the first Caucus
Ethanol will be in our gas tanks. Any Senator who thinks he may have a future shot at being President or comes from a Midwestern state regardless of their party will be against this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shraby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
6. Obama needs to repudiate nothing whatsoever
until the other two candidates start repudiating their bad votes/associations. Lay off him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nebula Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. This is what bothers me about supporters on both sides
Edited on Sun May-04-08 04:50 PM by nebula
if Obama's supporters think he shouldn't be criticized when criticism is warranted or admit when he's wrong then he is no better than Hillary or even Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 06:42 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC