Joe Walsh on Energy & OilRepublican presidential primary challenger (former IL Rep.) | |
Joe Walsh: Yeah, the Republican Party had better get onboard or they're done. This is the issue that concerns most young Americans, and the party's got to acknowledge the facts that it exists. Acknowledge that it's real. Acknowledge that on this four and a half billion year old planet, the climate changes and we've been on this planet for how long, and clearly we're impacting this environment. If we don't do this, we won't even be at the table. I don't want a Green New Deal-- I don't want the Democrats coming in and just re-revolutionizing the whole American economy, to a heavy hand of the government--but if Republicans don't sit at the table and acknowledge it's a problem, that's going to happen.
Trump: And we've ended the war on clean beautiful coal and we are putting our coal miners back to work. Clean coal.
Q: Under your administration would the future of America's energy be coal, green energy or something else entirely?
Joe Walsh: It would be all of the above. But it probably wouldn't be much coal. President Trump knows that the coal industry is dying in this country and it should be dying in this country because it's being replaced by cleaner forms of energy: natural gas and nuclear. We lost 15 percent of our total output two years ago under President Trump. We're we're on track to lose 20 percent of our coal output this year. It's a good thing. It should be replaced. It's dirty but it's an all-of-the-above thing: a balance with every issue. Balance our use of fossil fuels knowing that the future is renewables.
WALSH: Yes. It's an issue I was just blindly partisan about. No more of that. It's real and It's an issue that the Republican Party needs a seat at the table with. We need to acknowledge it and begin working on solutions.
A: The availability of low-cost energy sources is vital to our economy. Higher energy costs directly harm small businesses and also reduce the number of good paying jobs. US energy policy must be "all of the above," we cannot afford to turn our back on energy sources that are reliable, abundant and cost-effective. We can reduce our dependence on foreign oil by expanding domestic oil and gas exploration, expanding production of clean coal, looking to affordable sources of renewable energy and building more nuclear power plants.
Q: Should the US halt or expand offshore drilling?
A: America should not halt offshore drilling but we should look at ways to drill for more oil and gas closer to shore and on land.
Q: Should the US subsidize the production of ethanol for fuel?
A: We can reduce our dependence on foreign oil by reducing tariffs on foreign ethanol, including sugar-based ethanol from countries like Brazil.
Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Rep. Young, R-AK]: The Americans suffering from $4 a gallon gas today must feel like they're experiencing a sense of deja vu. In 2008, when gasoline prices reached a record high of $4.11 per gallon, the public outcry forced Congress to act. That fall, Congress lifted the offshore drilling ban that had been in place for decades. Three years later, most Americans would likely be shocked to learn that no energy development
has happened in these new areas.
Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Rep. Markey, D-MA]. In the first 3 months of this year, Exxon-Mobil made $10 billion off of the American consumer; Shell made $8 billion; BP made $7 billion. So what are these companies asking for? These companies are now asking that we open up the beaches of California, Florida & New England to drill for oil. People who live near those beaches don't want oil coming in the way it did in the Gulf of Mexico. Right now, those oil companies are centered down in the Gulf of Mexico. People are concerned because those companies have blocked any new safety reforms that would protect against another catastrophic spill. We have to oppose this bill because, first of all, they already have 60 million acres of American land that they haven't drilled on yet, which has about 11 billion barrels of oil underneath it and an equivalent amount of natural gas. This bill is just a giveaway to Exxon-Mobil and Shell.
Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Rep. Waxman, D-CA]: This bill is a direct assault on the Clean Air Act. Its premise is that climate change is a hoax and carbon pollution does not endanger health and welfare. But climate change is real. It is caused by pollution, and it is a serious threat to our health and welfare. We need to confront these realities. American families count on the EPA to keep our air and water clean. But this bill has politicians overruling the experts at EPA, and it exempts our biggest polluters from regulation. If this bill is enacted, the EPA's ability to control dangerous carbon pollution will be gutted.
No Climate Tax Pledge: "I pledge to the taxpayers of my state, and to the American people, that I will oppose any legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue."
Sponsoring organizations: Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEU); National Taxpayers Union (NTU); Institute for Liberty Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is a nationwide organization of citizen-leaders committed to advancing every individual's right to economic freedom and opportunity. AFP believes reducing the size and intrusiveness of government is the best way to promote individual productivity and prosperity for all Americans.
The Contract from America, clause 2. Reject Cap & Trade:
Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation's global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures.
The Contract from America, clause 8. Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy:
Authorize the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers, [to keep energy prices low].