Arctic Drilling Issue - a COVER UP for something FAR MORE DANGEROUS

[Booberdawg]

The Arctic drilling issue is just a cover for the far more dangerous provisions in the energy bill. Ironically, it would be better to keep the drilling issue in the bill because then the whole bill would die. This issue has been strategically planted by the repubs all along to divert attention away from the other more far-reaching and potentially devastating anti-consumer and anti-environment provisions in the energy bill.

Note this comment buried in a recent New York Times article purporting to be about the Arctic drilling issue.

Even if Republicans eventually have to drop the drilling plan to pass the final bill, some acknowledge potential benefits in that result: they can then point to the concession on drilling to quiet Democrats unhappy that the bill is being written mainly by Republicans and environmental groups critical of the measure's benefits for the energy industry.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/22/politics/22ENER.html

For example, there’s a provision in the bill at the behest of the bush* White House and House Republicans to grant the federal government extensive new power to seize private property to establish power lines, even if it means overruling state and local authorities. In other words – force private citizens to give up their homes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/16/politics/16ENER.html

The provisions in the bill for nuclear energy and research development are a pretext for this administrations nuclear weapons ambitions. (This is a particularly complicated issue in the bill that I don’t pretend to grasp so I defer to another Duer link below for a more intelligent description and discussion of this part of the bill.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=375948#379235

The deregulation aspects of the energy bill are devastating and will undo what remaining consumer protections are left since repeals began under bush sr leaving consumers vulnerable to rate hikes and market instability. (Think California energy crisis – ALL of that was artificially MANUFACTURED by market manipulation – for which Californians will spend at least the next 2 decades paying SIGNIFICANTLY higher rates for as a result.)

Here is an excellent piece written by Greg Palast that explains how regulation came to be in the first place in 1933 under Franklin Roosevelt, in response to a Ken Lay energy/power clone, Wall Street shark of the time that also cooked the books, ripped off customers, and manipulated the market. These protections were in place until bush sr gave a huge chunk of them away on his way out of the White House in 1992

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=258&row=0

Here are a couple references with a lot of background on the subject of deregulation and how it came about. They are both pretty long – the first one is 29 pages and the second one is 59 pages, but provided here in case anyone is interested in taking a deeper look. Good for beginners.

Blind Faith: How Deregulation and
Enron’s Influence Over Government
Looted Billions from Americans
http://www.publiccitizen.org/documents/Blind_Faith.pdf

HOAX
How Deregulation Let the Power Industry Steal $71 Billion From California
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/utilities/rp/rp002193.pdf

A comparison of the House and Senate versions of the energy bill
http://www.citizen.org/documents/energybillcomparison.pdf


ACTION/STRATEGY AND PLEA FOR PARTICIPATION

Here is a thread started to put some DU heads together and come up with some points to letters and hopefully effect more opposition to this bill through elected officials and other groups likely to support a call for action against the energy bill. This bill is currently under consideration and we need to act NOW!


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=375948

[Sailorforclark]

1. Interesting

Thanks boober!:toast:

[Booberdawg]

4. Welcome to DU, Sailorforclark!

:toast:

[Sailorforclark]

5. Thanks!

[G_j]

2. Silly me, but I don't see the point in an energy bill at all

unless it's all about alternative energy. Just like the WTO talks breaking down, no deal is better than a bad deal. You won't get a good bill out of the present Admin. and Congress, it will never happen. I wish the Dems could just kill it and wait until the Shrub is gone.

[TacticalPeek]

6. Reasonable.

Let's just look through the words warehouse and find some RW swill along the lines of "we don't need a national energy policy" and cram it down their throats before they get their snouts in the trough. Then, sweep the Congress clean with the flaming bush brush, and develop rational, alternative energy policy in the long-term interests of the nation's security and prosperity, not for short-term, special interests.

The country cannot afford payoffs to special interests and malAdministration cronies. We've got a debacle to pay for, and it don't come cheap.

[salin]

24. The point is - this is a speeding train on a track

your assessment is right. No policy is better than this policy. But we have to weigh in on it. En masse. Without word - the folks on the hill think that after the big blackout (the impetus for pushing this awful bill again that screws the hell out of citizen/consumers) was given to the GOP. We have to let legislatures that the BlackOut was not enough to make us want to sell our rights as electric/utility consumers right out the window. Or to sell our rights to parks (for drilling and the like) that WE pay for and intend to not have dessecrated.

[G_j]

30. yes Salin I agree

and I have been trying to keep up with your threads on the subject, I have sent a number of emails and will make calls. I feel quite overwhelmed by this bill, I hardly know where to start, the thing is such an awful monster! But yes, to be realistic it's a train that seems bound to it's destination. I guess our job is to try to get it as 'unloaded' as possible before it reaches the station. What a mess!

oh how I miss Carter... :-(

[Booberdawg]

31. "I feel quite overwhelmed by this bill"

I am new to this issue to and the whole bill and all of its parts is overwhelming. I just started out by reading the articles in the past threads and have found myself now concentrating on the deregulation aspects of the bill, and particularly how California was so seriously scammed.

There are others here better informed on the other aspects of the bill, such as the parts pertaining to nuclear weapons ambitions of the current administration that are highly technical and complicated that I don't even pretend to understand. So I avoid that part of the bill altogether and defer to my better-informed comrades.

If enough of us become familiar with different, smaller aspects of the bill we can still approach it with separate points and letters to elected officials and other groups likely to support a call for action against the energy bill.

Appreciate your interest. If enough of us attack the different angles maybe we can accomplish something.

[salin]

37. No Kidding, after the 70s Energy Crisis - he set a long term

energy policy and created the dept of energy (which the GOP has been trying to shut down since - until W came in and they decided to make it the Dept of GiftsfortheEnergyIndustry). Imagine where we would be today if we had been working towards energy independence since 1979.

[G_j]

38. there would be no excuse

for "oil wars" either!

[seventhson]

3. This Bill must be defeated at all costs. Pay Attention Folks

we CAN stop them now

[TacticalPeek]

11. Let's FCC 'em!

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[G_j]

12. visualise

Energy Bill DOA!

[bigtree]

17. These might help

Democratic press updates on energy bill:
http://energy.senate.gov/news/news_dem_bydate.cfm

Copy of the energy bill as reported:
http://returningsoldiers.us/energybillasreported.htm

Conference link:
http://energy.senate.gov/legislation/energybill2003/energybill2003.cfm

[G_j]

18. thanks! n/t

[screaming_meme]

7. What's so shocking about this part?

For example, there’s a provision in the bill at the behest of the bush* White House and House Republicans to grant the federal government extensive new power to seize private property to establish power lines, even if it means overruling state and local authorities. In other words – force private citizens to give up their homes.

How is this different than Eminent Domain? I mean, as long as they compensate landowners, this has been done for a long, long, time.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

8. Eminent domain is not for use by private entities

[zekeson]

Yeah, like that big ol' Baseball Stadium built up near Dallas

that one wasn't built using any taxpayer's land, now was it? At least Bush* is going back to something he has experience at - raping the private citizen. Gee, anyone remember when he said that he was going to run on a platform of states rights, and here we get this Fed rights bill...?

[salin]

26. Well they created a quasi government organization to do it

and it took the heat. Technically it was not shrub's rangers that pulled the land grab. This is new - giving the right to corporations.

Hell my family bought land 45+ years ago from a farmer (it was far out of town at the time) and built a home on some acreage. The city grew up around the town. That acreage (a modest size) is now prime - near a major commercial area and upscale housing.

If we set a precedent if that a corporate cause is deemed for the good of the community that it has the right of eminent domain - is our acreage in danger? You betcha.

This is a very, very dangerous precedent.

Imagine the ease with which this administration manipulates data/intel to make whatever case they want to make...being used against property owners. There isn't enough housing in this community - developers should be able - where they see a need - to meet this crisis through eminent domain...

[TacticalPeek]

9. Well I guess we aren't really shocked when repukes trample states' rights.

At least, not anymore. It's always been a cover for supporting racist segregation and theocratic politicians anyway.

Goodby, shock. Hello, mendacity.

[TacticalPeek]

10. And this:

snip
Sections 201 and 202 of S. 597 offer both a policy on regional coordination and federal support for such efforts. This is a good start, worthy of serious consideration and analysis by the Congress. However, federal preemption is a draconian step completely inconsistent with reasonable views of federalism and energy policy. In fact, many view the problems that have developed in restructuring as primarily failings at the federal level. Enhanced federal authority in that situation may well be counterproductive.

Additionally, certain proposals contained in your September 6 draft legislation on electricity issues would unreasonably constrain state efforts to address electricity restructuring by increasing federal authority. The proposals for enhanced federal jurisdiction over both bundled and unbundled transmission services, a legislative mandate to participate in RTOs, eminent domain authority for FERC, along with several other provisions pre-empting State and local authority, limit the important adjudicatory and regulatory role of State commissions, Governors, legislators and local elected officials.

snip

from September 13, 2001 letter to Honorable Jeff Bingaman, Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee from:

National Governors Association
National Conference of State Legislatures
National Association of Counties
National Association of Towns and Townships
National Association of State Energy Officials
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates
Association of State Energy Research and Technology Transfer Institutions
Council of State Governments

http://www.nga.org/nga/legislativeUpdate/letterDetailPrint/1,1421,2539,00.html

[Booberdawg]

20. Damn, I didn't realize the reference I cited for the eminent domain

issue was going to be archived and not avaiable for this. It was fully viewable this afternoon. Now there's just an abstract and the rest of the article unavailable without paying a fee.

I'll see if I can find another source that covers this issue.

[Oilwellian]

22. No, this has not been done for a long long time

NOT by the Feds. A couple of years ago, our local utility company wanted to build more power lines across our property and that of our neighbors. It wasn't because our community was starving for additional energy and in trouble if these lines weren't built. My utility company wanted these lines because they want to get into the game of selling electricity to OTHER cities and make more of a profit. Of course our community got together and defeated this proposal because we put a LOT of pressure on STATE and LOCAL officials who were the ones with the power to claim eminant domain. I can't imagine how we could have won if we were fighting against the FEDS. Get it???

[Booberdawg]

23. Exactly the point. Thanks for sharing your story.

[leesa]

13. Why do Republicans want to destroy our country? Are they so addicted

to money that they can't care about anyone...even their own children? Is it just chronic hate for thirty years that has rotted their brains?

[Booberdawg]

14. Greed, Power, and $$$$$

[G_j]

15. if we knew that

we might be able to suggest some sort of therapy. :shrug:

I think some are seriously delluded, while others actually ARE trying to destroy the country/planet. ...scary thought

edit, dilluded or delluded? my sense of spelling sux tonight, the later looks right(?)

[TacticalPeek]

16. They fear the future and do not trust democracy.

They cower and panic, and rush to "get mine" before its gone. This leads to economic and financial behavior that risk killing the golden goose in return for fool's gold now. This withers the future of our posterity, and they must be stopped.

[bigtree]

19. The government is full of failed buisnessmen

looking for taxpayers to invest in their boondogles. Everyone with their hand in the other's sleazy deals.

[maggrwaggr]

21. kick

:kick:

I was wondering why they grasped on to that losing proposition. Now I know.

And so should everybody else.

[TacticalPeek]

25. Kick!

Know your enemy, so you don't get suckered.

:kick:

[Booberdawg]

27. kick

[VOX]

28. A dutiful kick...

This is a travesty that can perhaps still be averted...

:kick:

[bigtree]

29. morning kick

The 2003 Energy Bill bill is still in conference.

The last attempt to put over this type of legislation failed.

The Energy Policy Act of 2002 (from the 107th Congress) conference negotiations ended without an agreement. Comprehensive energy legislation had to wait until the 108th Congress started in January 2003.

2002 Energy Bill
http://energy.senate.gov/legislation/energybill/energybill2002.html

Copy of the 2003 energy bill as reported:
http://returningsoldiers.us/energybillasreported.htm

Conference link:
http://energy.senate.gov/legislation/energybill2003/energybill2003.cfm

Keep on Kicking!

[Booberdawg]

32. kick

[bigtree]

33. kick

:nuke:

[dusty64]

34. The whole corporate welfare

STINKS and its harmful to the People and the Planet! I hope it dies a horrible death.

[TacticalPeek]

35. Kick.

Better to stop it now than reverse it later.

:kick:

[bigtree]

36. kick

:kick:

[salin]

39. I have an idea - tell me what you think....

We can call for 10-15 people to volunteer to read the PUHCA for dummies item - and then we work together to develop analogous stories or situations to illustrate the different aspects of the paper (and the issues related to deregulation of energy that occurs by getting rid of it).

Probably give folks a day to read the thing (at their leisure) and ask questions or make comments on that thread, then regroup to try to write some scenario/examples. Hopefully by breaking it down this way and giving illustrations (literal ones that is), more readers will get a better sense of the issue and we will all be a little better versed in terms for writing letters, making calls and encouraging others to do the same.

[salin]

40. PUHCA For Dummies

http://www.citizen.org/documents/puhcafordummies.pdf

[Gingersnap]

41. KICK!

:kick:

[Booberdawg]

42. kick

[DemBones DemBones]

43. OK, I'm finally getting to this thread and damned if those

RW bastards aren't doing it again! They're hitting us on more fronts than we can keep up with.

[Booberdawg]

44. kick!

:kick:

[T Roosevelt]

45. Kick

:kick:

[Octafish]

46. A kick to the pants of the BFEE...

... and its stooge-in-chief, the Little Turd from Crawford.

[KittyWampus]

47. good information

kick

[Booberdawg]

48. HERE IS LATEST THREAD STARTED ON ENERGY BILL ISSUE

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=407170&mesg_id=407170

[Booberdawg]

50. kick

[Lorien]

49. Kick

:kick: