Yesterday I went to my usual gas station, they generally have the lowest prices in my area - it was just after payday and I usually fill up, but I got to the pump and regular unleaded was $3.59 a gallon. No fill up for me! I'll continue to put $20 in at a time in hopes that the cost will go down in the next couple of days.
Getting a bus pass for March is lookin' pretty good, even if it increases my commute time from 20 minutes to more than an hour each way. . . . let's not get started on the mass transit system here in paradise!
But back to the gas/oil prices . . . here's an article from TruthOut from March 3, if you want to read other pertinent articles about what's happening in our world, click on the link above.
Send a comment by clicking on the "comment" link under this post and let me know how you like paying YOUR highly taxed, hard earned $$$ to make the oil fat cats fatter! Do I hear economic boycotts???
The Senate Shills for Big Oil The New York Times Editorial
Monday 03 March 2008
One of the major shortcomings in last year's admirable energy bill was its failure to extend vital tax credits to producers of wind, solar and other renewable fuels. This was entirely the doing of the Senate, which caved in to the oil companies and their White House friends.
The House had approved the credits but insisted - under the Democrats' pay-as-you-go rules - that they be paid for by eliminating the same amount in tax credits for oil and gas producers. Industry (which is rolling in cash these days) howled, President Bush lofted veto threats, and the Senate caved.
The damage was immediately apparent. New investment in clean, non-fossil-fuel energy sources - which need the help until they become competitive with older, dirtier energy sources - began to shrivel.
The Senate now has a chance to redeem itself. Last week, the House approved a new $17 billion package of credits, spread over 10 years, to encourage the development of renewable energy sources and to promote energy-efficient buildings and appliances.
As before, the House insisted that the credits be paid for by terminating an equivalent $17 billion in tax breaks over 10 years for oil and gas companies. And right on schedule, Senate Republicans began complaining that increasing industry's taxes would discourage investment in domestic oil and gas production.
What will it take to wake the Senate up? It should be clear to even the most obtuse members that a country that consumes one-fifth of the world's oil but has only 3 percent of its reserves cannot possibly drill its way to energy independence.
It should be equally clear that an industry whose five biggest producers generated $145 billion in profits last year can easily sacrifice $1.7 billion in annual tax breaks it does not need to help develop the cleaner fuels the country does need.
If those arguments aren't enough, we offer the Senate some words from President Bush. In a 2005 address to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Mr. Bush spoke forcefully of the need for an energy strategy that looked to the long term and emphasized conservation and renewable fuels.
Of the oil and gas industry, he said pointedly: "I will tell you with $55 oil we don't need incentives to the oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty of incentives. What we need is to put a strategy in place that will help this country over time become less dependent."
The question for Mr. Bush and the Senate is clear: If that was true at $55 a barrel, why isn't it even more valid and urgent at $100 a barrel?
Monday 03 March 2008
One of the major shortcomings in last year's admirable energy bill was its failure to extend vital tax credits to producers of wind, solar and other renewable fuels. This was entirely the doing of the Senate, which caved in to the oil companies and their White House friends.
The House had approved the credits but insisted - under the Democrats' pay-as-you-go rules - that they be paid for by eliminating the same amount in tax credits for oil and gas producers. Industry (which is rolling in cash these days) howled, President Bush lofted veto threats, and the Senate caved.
The damage was immediately apparent. New investment in clean, non-fossil-fuel energy sources - which need the help until they become competitive with older, dirtier energy sources - began to shrivel.
The Senate now has a chance to redeem itself. Last week, the House approved a new $17 billion package of credits, spread over 10 years, to encourage the development of renewable energy sources and to promote energy-efficient buildings and appliances.
As before, the House insisted that the credits be paid for by terminating an equivalent $17 billion in tax breaks over 10 years for oil and gas companies. And right on schedule, Senate Republicans began complaining that increasing industry's taxes would discourage investment in domestic oil and gas production.
What will it take to wake the Senate up? It should be clear to even the most obtuse members that a country that consumes one-fifth of the world's oil but has only 3 percent of its reserves cannot possibly drill its way to energy independence.
It should be equally clear that an industry whose five biggest producers generated $145 billion in profits last year can easily sacrifice $1.7 billion in annual tax breaks it does not need to help develop the cleaner fuels the country does need.
If those arguments aren't enough, we offer the Senate some words from President Bush. In a 2005 address to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Mr. Bush spoke forcefully of the need for an energy strategy that looked to the long term and emphasized conservation and renewable fuels.
Of the oil and gas industry, he said pointedly: "I will tell you with $55 oil we don't need incentives to the oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty of incentives. What we need is to put a strategy in place that will help this country over time become less dependent."
The question for Mr. Bush and the Senate is clear: If that was true at $55 a barrel, why isn't it even more valid and urgent at $100 a barrel?
4 comments:
Great post Laura! I've been boycotting since 1994--and here in San Diego we have Carfree San Diego as a place to share our discoveries.
Worldwide, You might like to visit the World Carfree Network, Plane Stupid, and Low Fly Zone.
Using cars and planes will probably never be just or fair for the people and other life on the earth. We just need to start designing and building our cities and lives to make car- and plane-free the norm in the US.
Colin, Thanks for your comment!
Great comments Colin. Where have you been?
Walter,
Thanks for asking!
[I'm using what I wrote here for a sidebar on my forest blog.]
I'm working on getting rid of posessions I cannot carry and heading out to the forest with a PDA for reading books, a solio solar charger, and a cell phone.
My goal is to be able to blog about what I'm doing, to provide an example others can learn from, and to stay in contact with urban dwellers so they can come out and visit, and I can encourage them to spend time comfortably and simply in the outdoors.
Not everyone can follow this example. And I am sort of giving up on directly helping to green the cities, but I am inspired by the following:
"Don't ask what the world needs. Ask what makes you come alive,
and go do it. Because what the world needs is people who have
come alive." -- Howard Thurman, civil rights leader
I don't enjoy moving myself around San Diego, but I do enjoy moving around the forest. And it is wonderful to spend time with people away from their cars in great unpaved places.
Post a Comment