So, looks like Dingy Harry has introduced his Clean Energy Jobs and Oil Company Accountability Act.You can read the draft text here. To begin with
The Clean Energy Jobs and Oil Accountability Act would ensure that BP pays to clean up its mess. Second, it would invest in Home Star, a bipartisan energy efficiency program that lowers consumers’ energy costs and create jobs. Third, it would protect the environment by investing in the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Fourth, it would reduce our dependence on oil by making investments in vehicles that run on electricity and natural gas. Finally, it would increase the amount that oil companies are required to pay into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
Approximately the first quarter of this deals with BP, oil spills, and more regulations and oversight on offshore and deepwater drilling. And, yes, it does create more government jobs while increasing oil production not one bit. Then we get to
Section 401 Provides the short title, “The Environmental Crimes Enforcement Act of 2010”
Section 402 directs the United States Sentencing Commission to review and amend the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and policy statements applicable to persons convicted of offenses under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reflect the intent of Congress that penalties for such offenses be increased to appropriately account for the actual
harm to the public and the environment from such offenses.
This creates energy and jobs, how? Well, jobs for lawyers and gov’t beauroweenies, I guess.
Section 504 amends the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA) to enhance remedies for wrongful death on the high seas. This section would allow wrongful death cases under DOHSA to be brought in admiralty as well as in law….
WTF? Energy?
Lots of disaster this and disaster that. Gubbmint monitoring. Nothing about real jobs or energy, halfway through the text.
Section 901 provides the short title, “The Coral Reef Conservation Amendments of 2010.”
Want to bet globull warming BS ends up there, once the full bill is available?
A little more than halfway through, and we get to natural gas vehicles, and all sorts of government rebates, grants, loans, and such (starting in Section 2000). Then electric car grids. 500 mile electric battery. Hey, I wonder where all the power and natural gas will come from? Maybe later in the bill? (Read to the end. Nope. Nothing)
Section C is about Clean Energy Jobs and Consumer savings. In other words, people are supposed to spend money they do not have for more expensive Energy Star products which aren’t available. Rebates and “approved claims.” This is the government. Good luck with those claims! Blah blah blah. No energy creation, or real jobs, anywhere.
Section D is about “Protecting the Environment.” Say, don’t we already have an act about this, signed into law by President Nixon? And an agency to enforce it?
Oh, look, appropriations along the lines of protecting the environment. Hey, maybe these should be in that budget the Dems won’t pass?
Division E – Fiscal Responsibility..???????….ROTFLOL! Those words belong nowhere near a Democrat piece of legislation.
And, that is the end. No energy production, no real jobs. Reuters has a bit of a breakdown, as well. Nothing about jobs or energy production there, either.
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU
Coral reefs!?!
Recent peer-reviewed science is showing that coral reefs are handling the extremely slow sea-level rise quite nicely- in fact they are growing faster than the sea level is rising. And that ‘ocean acidification’ scarcely bothers them.
Energy? jobs?
From this administration / democrap-run congress?
Perhaps Reid wants to protect them and see them grow in order to turn them into biofuel?
Great! An opinion based on scientific research! Could you provide some links to the papers? Or at least your source?
Yes, I could!
Would YOU actually read it?
Of course I would read it, as I would any other relevant papers on the subject, so be sure I fully understand the situation. A link would be lovely.
Then Google it.
Good grief, otter. What is it with you guys putting the burden of proof on others? If you can’t provide proof for your own assertion, then it is invalid. I’m not spending forever sifting through the internet, looking for what might or might not be your source. You provide a link, or at least a title and lead author name, or your point is invalid, as you obviously just parroted yet another talking point without actually having seen any research papers. It’s up to you.
Besides, why would you say that you could provide a link, only to tell me to google it?
Okay, since you’re not answering, I Googled it and the following were my first three hits:
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/45/17442.abstract
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/318/5857/1737
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163834?prevSearch=%255Bauthor%253A%2BDoney%255D&searchHistoryKey=
All of which seem to say that ocean acidification is a problem for coral reefs.
Now, since you seem to be claiming to have evidence of the opposite, could you provide your proof?
[…] get the support of many Senators in his own party, including Mary Landrieu and Mark Begich. As I pointed out, this bill mandates quite a bit, yet, creates no energy, and only a few government jobs, though it […]