1. Significantly ease restrictions on ecologically vigilant drilling for oil and natural gas.
2. End tax subsidies for oil companies.
3. Divert those subsidies to green energy projects.
The internet is full of reports citing increased drilling for oil will create anywhere between 200,000 and 3 million jobs. It would decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and we could stop exporting our nation’s wealth overseas.
Ending oil subsidies will act to support the price of gasoline that could drop significantly because of increased supply and proximity. So this will not deter green energy development by having to compete with dirt-cheap dirty energy.
Part of the diverted subsidies can go to backstop a loan guarantee program to the eighteen-wheeler industry to convert rigs and refueling stations over to LNG (liquefied natural gas). This will dramatically reduce our carbon footprint in the near term. Because LNG is inexpensive, long haul truckers will have increased incomes and security.
Some of the subsidies can be used not only for research and development but also to incentivize business and homeowners to put solar panels on every sunny roof. This will significantly reduce the existing carbon footprint from coal. Perhaps with the government’s help they can develop and make economically feasible clean coal technology. Some of the subsidies can also go to help coal industry workers who lose their jobs to transition to green energy jobs.
Solar and wind energy projects are wonderfully labor intensive and locally distributed because of the installing and maintaining of equipment, and these are jobs that cannot be exported. If we as a nation do not look for technologies and advancements in quality of living that features sustainable jobs, then it is likely, because of computers, machines, and the ever-present competition between nations, we may have even fewer jobs to go around.
As in most bipartisan bills, there is a lot for both fiscal conservatives and social liberals to dislike. But, people are just not going to stop driving their cars, prepare all their meals with solar cookers, freeze in the winter or fry in the summer. Many believe hydraulic fracturing may harm the environment. There may or may not be procedures and policies to deal with fracking. On the other hand, denying climate change is just not credible, for at the least it is gambling (compulsive) with future generations’ stakes, and at the worst it’s an affront to reason, logic, and the scientific method. Fiscal Conservatives won’t like that the dominance of the fossil fuel industry days are numbered, even if we’re counting in decades.
The All Energy Jobs Act 3.2.1. puts us on a glide path to energy independence, and a lower carbon footprint. And it immediately addresses blunting the misery a fifth of our population (including the disaffected) has because they have nothing gainful to do with themselves everyday. And that is simply not acceptable in a greater nation.
I like the direction of this bill overall, but the phrasing in point #1 is too vague:
"Significantly ease restrictions on sensible drilling for oil and natural gas."
Everyone thinks that what they want is sensible, so this could refer to almost anything. It needs to be defined with specifics.
Also, the reference to climate change deniers seems out of place. There are many other reasons to diversify energy sources other than the cited behavior of an ill-defined group of people. The bill would be stronger if you talked about real world consequences such as those involving energy costs to homes and businesses, US and global economic stability, health effects from various forms of energy sourcing, consequences of energy waste, specific facts about job development, energy infrastructure vulnerability to attack, specific physical/observable effects of climate change, etc.
Fossil fuels should no longer be supported or subsidized. Our money should go to creating a clean green energy supply.
Please bring up points that were missed, elaborate on issues not fleshed out, add ways to make the idea/bill better, suggest a companion for GREATER Raters to consider. Please check your facts, grammar, syntax, punctuation, credit sources and quotes, and keep it under 500 words unless you absolutely cannot—then never more than 700 words. Please keep your criticism constructive. We will likely not print destructive criticism although a well written partisan rant bringing up new issues in the idea/bill or previous Op-eds may be accepted if it ends on a constructive note—especially if it offers an alternative idea/bill.
Shorter "letters" are encouraged that bring a new facet to the subject. The intent of the Op-eds is to fully cover the issue for the kind reader to consider before rating, and not waste their time with redundancy or the dreaded—"people-screaming-at-one-another-while-wearing-earplugs-syndrome." Think of the idea/bill as the base with the Op-eds stacked on top to form a structurally sound argument. The goal here is to have a GREATER US for the greatest number of citizens/neighbors. We may publish your piece without notice—so please only submit completed articles. We may, also, contact you for a rewrite or edit. We might even offer suggestions. It is our intention to fairly present the views of fiscal conservatives, independents, and social liberals—to find the overlap of whole-hearted support (nonpartisan) plus the commonality of the "I-can-live-with-that" (bipartisan).