Look who's listening.....

[wacki]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0505/p01s04-usfp.html

What's new is that security-minded conservatives have begun to jump on the energy-independence bandwagon too.

Last fall, the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, a Washington think tank on energy, issued a plan called "Set America Free." In December, the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy released its strategy. Last month, a bevy of national-security "energy hawks," military brass, and industry officials, as well as prominent Democrats and environmentalists, published their plan under the name Energy Future Coalition.

"We believe that the United States' dependence on imported petroleum poses a risk to our homeland security and economic well-being," wrote EFC in a letter to President Bush in March signed by more than 30 military and security officials, including Robert McFarlane, former national security adviser to President Ronald Reagan.

[Rex Nihilo]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0505/p01s04-usfp.html

What's new is that security-minded conservatives have begun to jump on the energy-independence bandwagon too.

Last fall, the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, a Washington think tank on energy, issued a plan called "Set America Free." In December, the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy released its strategy. Last month, a bevy of national-security "energy hawks," military brass, and industry officials, as well as prominent Democrats and environmentalists, published their plan under the name Energy Future Coalition.

"We believe that the United States' dependence on imported petroleum poses a risk to our homeland security and economic well-being," wrote EFC in a letter to President Bush in March signed by more than 30 military and security officials, including Robert McFarlane, former national security adviser to President Ronald Reagan.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. I've been waiting for a long time for the Democrats to figure out that tax-breaks worked better than regulation to get things done. It seems that this administration has done that.

Reading the article, seems like there are other concerns not being addressed, but it is a start!

[Phat Mack]

[ QUOTE ]

Wow. I've been waiting for a long time for the Democrats to figure out that tax-breaks worked better than regulation to get things done. It seems that this administration has done that.

Reading the article, seems like there are other concerns not being addressed, but it is a start!

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
One key change is that this year's bill eliminates most tax incentives for alternative fuels and fuel efficiency. Last year's version devoted about 65 percent to fossil-fuel exploration and nuclear research; this year's apportions about 95 percent of tax incentives to them, leaving just 5 percent for conservation and renewable energy, Mr. Nayak says. More than $3 billion in tax incentives for renewables were dropped, according to his analysis. The production tax credit for wind, solar, and other renewable industries expires in 2006. The House bill doesn't renew it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Rex Nihilo]

I guess I read the article in a bit of a rush. I guess I should not comment on something I read in a hurry.

Thanks for pointing that out. I will have to reread it.

[Phat Mack]

I was encouraged by the article also, but am not sure that the energy debates will be drawn on Republican/Democratic lines.