Brownback wants U.S. to use less oil

Good for Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., for not being content to forget about the nation’s oil needs even though pump prices are no longer over $3 or even $2. He’s the chief GOP co-sponsor of bipartisan legislation introduced Wednesday aimed at cutting U.S. oil consumption by 2.5 million barrels a day over the next 10 years. Its proposed tax breaks and loan guarantees are the sort of incentives that automakers need to step up their efforts to develop alternative-fuel technologies — including biomass fuels that would be good for Kansas farmers as well as American drivers. It’s nice to see that energy conservation isn’t just a virtue anymore in Washington, D.C.
Posted by Rhonda Holman

8 Comments

  1. JUSTA GUY
    Posted November 20, 2005 at 6:57 am | Permalink

    Hmmmmmmmmm. Big oil must have cut back on contributions to Sam or it is some of the same old spin he likes to put out.

  2. Andy McNickle
    Posted November 20, 2005 at 10:14 am | Permalink

    Hirsch Report, Hirsch Report, Hirsch ReportThe big boys are getting theirs while the getting is good. Record profits, record prices, record tax breaks, lies to congress about who met with Pres Cheney(If you think a dry drunk who doesn’t know the differenc between Switzerland and Sweden, and had to be told that there are three(major) separate groups of people in Iraq, shortly befor we invaded to free them from their oil is in charge, I suppose it isn’t nearly as scary as what is actually going on).

  3. Joe Williams
    Posted November 20, 2005 at 10:41 am | Permalink

    Big Oil to Big Farmers? You talk about billions of dollars in subsidies.

  4. Galahad
    Posted November 20, 2005 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

    Yeah . . . I’m thinking what do tax breaks have with oil conservation?

    What they should do is pass HUGE taxes ON oil . . . and use the money to develop alternative fuels.

    Nope, that might actually work, so stick with a slightly modified policy that has served the Republicans well since Reagan, “maintain the status quo on energy.”

  5. Damoon
    Posted November 20, 2005 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

    Galahad, you are so right, but no one would have the balls to do it. It’s only when oil prices are out of sight that alternative fuel sources will be seriously considered. As long as Americans can enjoy affordable gas to fuel their SUVs and monster trucks, nothing will change.

  6. KansasNate
    Posted November 21, 2005 at 12:07 am | Permalink

    What the article won’t tell you is the bill (at least the house version) will also include drilling in Alaska along with no increase in CAFE standards.

    Basically, GM could get subsidies for making a hybrid hummer that gets 9 mpg instead of 6 mpg.

    Big improvement.

    There is a link to the House version white paper over at:

    http://www.theantisam.com

  7. Jed
    Posted November 21, 2005 at 11:47 pm | Permalink

    Galahad,Unfortunately, it’s not just the SUV owners that own gas guzzlers. A lot of desperately poor people can only afford old clunkers that use a lot of gas. While I have no particular sympathy for Suburban drivers, we need a plan that doesn’t penalize poor people too!

  8. Roo
    Posted November 22, 2005 at 9:10 am | Permalink

    Old car buyback, maybe? But I like taxation on fossil-fuels to support development of alternative renewable and sustainable sources of energy. The less we use oil, the longer we have the supply, and also the less tax we pay. Wait, since fossil fuels are also “related” to evolution, let’s just ban creationists from using them!