6-20-07 by Court
What a difference a year makes. Last year oil companies were denying they had a hand in global warming and the big US Senate debate was whether to open up the Alaskan wildlife reserve to drilling for crude oil.
Well, now the debate is on about what type of alternative fuel will gradually replace gasoline and how we incentive it. The action in the Senate’s moving quicker than the US Open tennis tournament (read the latest play by play from the NY TImes) the but it’s pretty clear that the Senate by week’s end will take back billions in unnecessary tax breaks for oil companies and spend the dollars on alternative energy. At the moment, the liquid coal boondoggle is out of the mix, but so-called "clean coal" technology is in. Wind, solar and other proven clean energy will benefit.
Big picture, what’s important to remember as the Capitol Hill sausage makers stick together the scraps is that last year there was a serious debate in the Capitol about whether the world’s climate was warming. Now we are talking about what to do about it. Of course we have to keep an eye on what they’re putting in the sausage before Americans celebrate any victory.
One question on the latest blood and guts. A big bone of contention that the White House says will result in a veto is whether Americans will be able to sue oil producing nations for price gouging (see the NY Times for more about about NOPEC). Yet we don’t have consensus on being about to sue the oil companies domestically for price gouging. Politically, the foreign lawsuits provision sure does conjure up the shots from Fahrenheit 911 about Bush and the Saudi royal family. Pragmatically, though, it’s the domestic cartel that needs to be exposed to lawsuits if we are to have cleaner, cheaper fuel.