This past week in Congress, we considered a bill that that would try to sue our way to lower gas prices as well as another bill to create subsidies for only federal employees to take public transportation to work.

All I can say is are you kidding me? 

The cartoon below has a greater meaning after this week.

“Drive less, pay more,” Michele Bachmann, a first-term Congresswoman from Minnesota, said yesterday in describing the Democratic philosophy on the energy crisis. Bachmann, who hosted a energy crisis interview last week about how the Republicans would manage the energy crisis, used the phrase repeatedly again yesterday in describing the Democrat’s unsuccessful plans to handle the issue of $4 a gallon gasoline that has affected millions of Americans from coast to coast.  

Joined by GOP colleagues Congressman Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan, Congressman John Peterson of Pennsylvania, Congressman John Shimkus of Illionois and House Republican Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri, Bachmann criticized the Democrats’ proposed energy plans.

Congressman John Shimkus began his remarks about the Democratic plans by stating that “[T]he basic thing to say about it [the Democratic energy package] is just there is not a drop of supply in any of these three pieces of legislation.” (It should be noted that the Democrats have not yet released all of their energy plans thus far.) The released Democratic energy plans, which contain bills to prevent price gauging by oil companies and to force oil companies to either use or lose their currently-held federal leases for drilling before buying more properties, were criticized in the meeting for not addressing the basic concept of supply and demand.

The bills themselves do not address the issue of the United States using more of its own domestic oil supplies to react to the current energy crisis. Many Republicans support the idea of more offshore drilling and allowing more domestic production of oil but many Democrats have spoken out against the idea reasons ranging from the environmental impact of such drilling to the timeliness of this solution. Democrats have argued that even if more drilling was allowed, the benefits would not be seen for several years.

However, with the Democratic plans being pushed forward and more such Democaratic policies, McCotter stated that we will return to the days of the 1970’s, when Jimmy Carter was in the White House and another major energy crisis was in the headlines. In such a scenerio akin to what happened in the late 70's, McCotter argued, “[W]e are going to be sitting around in a bunch of sweaters hanging out by the thermostat hoping for the best and the big government bureaucrat over your shoulder telling you why you are destroying the earth.”

Shimkus, when talking about how Republicans have continued to support adding to the limited supply of oil currently on the market summed up the situation and differences between the two parties in the energy crisis simply, by saying:  “They are wrong, we are right, and the American people are with us.”

John P. Hanlon contributed to this report.

Only about 20 percent of the continental shelf is open for drilling, providing about 27 percent of domestic oil production and 14 percent of natural gas production. Republicans say that modern seismic work and drilling in deep waters in the central Gulf of Mexico have meant a sixfold increase in estimates of the oil there, and they believe that would happen again if exploration were expanded.

Representative John E. Peterson, Republican of Pennsylvania, is leading the House forces in favor of offshore drilling. He said opening more areas would cut down on fear and speculation in the oil markets.

Most oil companies support the Republican position and are particularly eager for access to the eastern gulf, noting that the water in some parts of it is shallow and drilling would be easy.

“These areas have potential, and we really need to find out what is out there,” said Stephen J. Hadden, senior vice president for exploration and production at Devon Energy, a major gulf producer. “We’re encouraged the dialogue is now occurring, and people are asking the hard questions as to why this is off limits.”

Supporters of the Republican position put estimates for potential oil production from new areas at 1 million barrels a day or more. That would be a notable improvement in domestic production, of about 5 million barrels a day. The United States consumes more than 20 million barrels of oil a day, importing most of it.

Here's the key: If there isn't any oil, the oil companies won't drill for what's not there. 

But if there are vast deposits off-shore, bringing it to market buys more time for the transition to alternative fuels, and any discoveries would bring down the price at the pump.

A bipartisan commitment to use the oil at our disposal would send a sharp and clear signal to futures markets, but the Democrats don't want to do that.  The big divide between McCain and the GOP and Obama and the Democrats is that the Democrats have long favored high gas prices as a instrument of no-growth environmentalism. 

Obama and the Triple D Democrats could work with the GOP to bring down gas prices.  They just don't want to.

In light of Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s proposal to provide $5,000 tax credits for consumers who buy new zero-emission vehicles, it would be timely to give an overview of some promising products in the developmental pipeline.

Toyota Motor Company is developing the Plug-in Hybrid Prius, which is scheduled to arrive in 2010. According to Toyota, this car can be driven approximately 7 miles in electric vehicle mode on a full charge; the production version might be able to yield 10 to 15 miles. It has placed prototypes at the University of California, Berkley and the University of California, Irvine (UCI) in
part to measure fuel economy and emissions. Plug-in Hybrids are believed to be capable of 100 miles per gallon.

In late 2010, General Motors (GM) is expected to commence production of the Chevrolet Volt, presumably as a 2011 vehicle. It will use $1.50 worth of electricity to charge overnight and is capable of driving 40 miles in pure electric mode. GM maintains that you could expect 150 MPG during 60 mile trips (the first 40 miles use electric power exclusively, then gasoline kicks
in to recharge the battery pack).

Fuel-cell vehicles might provide the best long-term solution. In article about Honda Motor Company’s FCX Clarity, the June 17 edition of The Wall Street Journal noted:

"Fuel-cell cars are considered the most promising pollution-free vehicles, as they are powered through a chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen, and emit only water as a byproduct.

But low-emission cars such as gasoline-electric hybrids and diesel vehicles are more popular now. A lack of hydrogen service stations, among other factors, is limiting demand for the cars, and therefore car makers can't mass produce them, keeping production costs high."

Honda and GM have committed to providing fuel-cell vehicles into the service of the general public. Honda plans to lease 200 FCX Clarity Fuel-Cell cars in the U.S. and Japan within the next three years. GM is placing 110 Chevrolet Equinox Fuel-Cell vehicles on the road; approximately 100 will be fielded with regular drivers in its "Project Driveway" program. The Los Angeles Times (June 15, 2008) also noted: "GM tasked the William Morris talent agency to help find celebrity drivers for its Equinox: It hopes high-profile drivers will help evangelize the technology and build public demand for hydrogen infrastructure."

The Government Accounting Office (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08305.pdf) noted: “Successful
commercialization of hydrogen fuel cell technologies – particularly
hydrogen fuel cell vehicles – will depend upon a hydrogen delivery
infrastructure that provides the same level of safety, convenience, and functionality as the existing gasoline delivery infrastructure.”

There are nine operating hydrogen fueling stations in the Los Angeles area: BP and Chevron have three stations; five stations are at Air Quality Management District sites and the other station is located at UCI. According to its Vice President of R&D, GM’s “studies indicate that just 40 stations distributed in the three counties comprising Los Angeles and along heavily traveled corridors to Santa Barbara, Las Vegas, San Diego, and Palm Springs would place hydrogen within convenient reach of most LA residents.”

According to a report authored by GM and Shell Hydrogen on
infrastructure :

Hydrogen providers will likely remain hesitant to move forward with the necessary investment unless two key enablers are in place:

*Strong (government) leadership and a clear national energy strategy that defines the specific role of hydrogen.

*Sustained long-term incentives for automakers, suppliers, infrastructure providers, and consumers to help overcome the near-term and long-term business risks associated with the high initial investment required until scale economies are reached for both the hydrogen infrastructure and FCEVs (Fuel Cell-Electric Vehicles).

Until there is adequate infrastructure, automobile manufacturers can't commence mass-production of fuel-cell vehicles. Honda maintains that the price of each vehicle would have to fall below $92,000 (10 million yen) to be a mass-market product. Both Honda and GM are providing heavy subsidies to place their fuel-cell vehicles in the hands of the public.

One kilogram of hydrogen has about the same energy content as one gallon of gasoline, and fuel cells are about twice as efficient as gasoline internal combustion engines. Fuel cell-electric vehicles generally can travel twice as far on a kilogram of hydrogen as internal-combustion-engine vehicles can travel on a gallon of gasoline. GM claims the ability to get 40 to 50 miles per kilogram of hydrogen in its Equinox SUV and Honda is claiming efficiency equivalent to 74 miles per gallon of gas in its FCX Clarity. The U.S. Department of Energy’s long-term target cost for hydrogen dispensed in a vehicle is $2 to $3 per kilogram.

Very interesting stuff and the mid-term to far-term future of drivng.  In the meantime, though, we need the oil on the outer continentla shelf and beneath ANWR.

“The United States Congress caused this problem by handcuffing this nation from accessing the answer to our current problem and we are the key to turn that around…”, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann said in a meeting about the $4 a gallon gasoline crisis that has caused prices at the pump to skyrocket. Bachmann, along with five other Republican members of Congress, spoke about the need for action that would lower prices at gas stations nationwide.

During the meeting, Congresswoman Bachmann, Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (TN), Congressman Eric Cantor (VA), Congressman Tom Price (GA), Congressman Adam Putnam (FL), and Congressman Phil Gingrey (GA) spoke about what can be done to lower the price of gas. During the interview, each member of Congress talked about the energy crisis touching up on such issues as domestic oil drilling, nuclear energy, and McCain’s recent high-profile endorsement of offshore drilling.

None of the members at the meeting seemed to believe that the Democratic Congress and the presumptive Democratic nominee Senator Barack Obama were taking this issue as seriously as it should be treated.

With that in mind, Congresswoman Bachmann noted her request to the citizens of her home state of Minnesota. She said that “[O]ne thing we have been asking people all over Minnesota is to send me copies of their [gasoline] receipts and any member of Congress would like to receive copies of people’s receipts from their gas bills.” Bachmann’s ultimate goal with the receipts is to take baskets of the receipts that she receives to the door of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to show the speaker the pain that the people of her state have been experiencing and to show the Speaker the seriousness of this major issue.
Read More...

It’s official: House Democrats have gone insane.  And I don’t mean insane like wearing white shoes after Labor Day or thinking of Jimmy Carter as an elder statesman.  I mean the guy on the corner in the sandwich board sign that reads, “Mr. Snuffleupagus Is The Antichrist!” crazy. 

To recap: gasoline now costs $4 per gallon, principally because America, which once consumed the vast majority of the world’s petroleum, now has to compete for the stuff with the increasingly industrialized, two-billion-footed nations of India and China.  More buyers, higher prices, simple as that.  We’re in the midst of what will almost certainly be a long-term struggle, on par with the Cold War, against hostile regimes who happen to operate in the most oil-rich region in the world.  Every year, we pump billions of petro-profits into some of the most unfriendly hands on earth, and in response to all of this, the Democrat majority of the United States House of Representatives demands that we… wait for it… nationalize our oil refineries?

Seriously!  This is their plan.  Not a secret plan, mind you, but something House Democrats – including their supposedly level-headed leaders – believe is within the boundaries of reasonable political debate in this country.  Look:

Maurice Hinchey: “We should own the refineries.  Then we can control how much gets out into the market.”  By “we,” Mr. Hinchey means, “the government.”  Seriously.  Government takeover of industry, 1930s Italy style. 

This isn’t moderate.  This isn’t even liberal.  This is socialism!  It’s crazy o’clock on Capitol Hill!

Think I’m kidding?  Ask Rep. Maxine Waters’ who at one of the star-chamber hearings with energy executives, said, “Guess what this liberal will be all about!  This liberal will be about socializing, uh… will be about… basically… taking over and the government running all of your companies.”  The government running all of our energy companies?  Based on her performance in that hearing, Maxine Waters can barely manage to run her mouth. 

We have the most innovative and efficient energy industry on earth.  The United States is sitting on more than 10 years worth of oil, in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico, and the Democrats’ response is to… nationalize the energy sector? 

Vulnerable is too gentle a word to describe the Democrats’ position on this issue.  We have the oil.  We have the industry.  We have the technological innovation to tap our reserves without needlessly undermining surrounding eco-systems.  A combination of new exploration, increased production, the creation of nuclear plants, and all the private research into alternative fuels you can shake a stick at will bring down gas prices.  It will bring down electricity and heating bills.  It will solve the problem.

The tin-foil-hat Democrats, on the other hand, want to revisit the failed policies of Marxist and Fascist dictators.  We need to get this crowd back on their meds.  Right away.

Congressman John Peterson says it best, "I think they were afraid they might lose the vote."

In my last post, I said that Rep. John Peterson (R-PA) would offer his amendment to allow deepwater energy exploration at a full Appropriations Committee markup on Wednesday.  This amendment failed on a party line vote in subcommittee.

Well, instead of taking action on it and risking another vote on Peterson’s amendment, Democrats postponed considering the Interior Appropriations measure altogether. If enacted, the amendment would allow increased exploration in deep ocean energy zones far off the Pacific and Atlantic coasts and the eastern Gulf of Mexico.

Another day, another bold display of leadership from the Democrats on energy.

Here is a clip from Rep. Peterson on Fox News talking about what happened Wednesday on his amendment.