Fuel efficiency and Middle East stability help on fuel costs
Out of the $90 that it's costing right now for a barrel, about 30% of that is just risk. It's not dictated by supply and demand. If we can lower the rhetoric, with respect to military action in the Middle East, that will have an immediate impact. One of
the things that we have to do with respect to conservation is to increase fuel efficiency standards on cars. We have to make that commitment by doing what I did, talking to the auto makers and providing them the incentives to start making those shifts.
Source: 2007 Democratic debate at Drexel University
Oct 30, 2007
Nuclear power ok if we safeguard against waste & terrorism
Q: Would you be in favor of developing more nuclear power to reduce oil dependency?
A: I don't think that we can take nuclear power off the table. What we have to make sure of is that we have the capacity to store waste properly and safely, and that we
reduce whatever threats might come from terrorism. And if we can do that in a technologically sound way, then we should pursue it. If we can't, we should not. But there is no magic bullet on energy. We're going to have to look at all the various options.
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College
Sep 6, 2007
Explore nuclear power as part of alternative energy mix
Q: What about nuclear power as an alternative energy source?
A: I actually think that we should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix. There are no silver bullets to this issue. We have to develop solar.
I have proposed drastically increasing fuel efficiency standards on cars, an aggressive cap on the amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted. But we're going to have to try a series of different approaches.
Cheney met environmentalists once; but Big Oil 40 times
The reason [our energy policy] doesn't change--you can take a look at how Dick Cheney did his energy policy. He met with environmental groups once. He met with renewable energy folks once. And then he met with oil and gas companies 40 times.
And that's how they put together our energy policy. We've got to put the national interests ahead of special interests, and that's what I'll do as president of the United States.
Cap-and-trade carbon emissions; raise CAFE standard
It's time to turn the page on energy, to break the stalemate that's kept our fuel efficiency standards in the same place for 20 years, to tell the oil and auto industries that they must act, not only because their future's at stake,
but because the future of our country and our planet is at stake.
As president, I will place a cap on carbon emissions and require companies who can't meet the cap to buy credits from those who can, which will generate
billions of dollars to invest in renewable sources of energy and create new jobs and even a new industry in the process. I'll put in place a low carbon fuel standard that will take 50 million cars worth of pollution off the road.
I'll raise the fuel efficiency standards for our cars and trucks because we know we have the technology to do it and it's the time to do it.
Source: Take Back America 2007 Conference
Jun 19, 2007
Stop sending $800M a day to Mideast dictators for oil
We can stop sending $800 million a day to Middle East dictators for oil that's a danger to our planet and a drag on our economy, and we can start using renewable fuels that are grown right in Iowa and Illinois, and we can help our car companies use
technology we already have to start churning our cars that use less oil. But none of this will come to pass until we do what everyone in this room knows what we must do and end this war in Iraq.
Source: 2007 IAFF Presidential Forum in Washington DC
Mar 14, 2007
Wants Detroit to build more hybrids & use more ethanol
Obama's solution to Detroit's woes calls for a government deal with the Big Three:
Obama highlighted legislative proposals he has offered. They include a bargain with the big three automakers that would help them with their high retiree health
costs if they use the savings to invest in fuel-efficient cars. Obama said the US auto industry is hurting because it has failed to keep pace with foreign carmakers who are transitioning much faster to sales of hybrids & other efficient cars.
Obama also called for higher fuel efficiency standards, greater ethanol production,
and making E-85 pumps widely available. Obama also urged US automakers to produce more flex-fuel cars that can run on blended gasoline. "It is time to install flex-fuel tanks on every car, and for government to cover this small cost."
Source: Should Barack Obama Be President?, by Fred Zimmerman, p.44-5
Oct 17, 2006
We cannot drill our way out of our addiction to oil
It is hard to overstate the degree to which our addiction to oil undermines our future. Without any change to energy policy, US demand for oil will jump 40% in 20 years. Over the same period, worldwide demand will jump 30%.
A large portion of the
$800 million we spend on foreign oil every day goes to some of the world's most volatile regimes. And there are the environmental consequences. Just about every scientist outside the White House believes climate change is real.
We cannot drill our way
out of the problem. Instead of subsidizing the oil industry, we should end every single tax break the industry currently receives and demand that 1% of the revenues from oil companies with over $1 billion in quarterly profits go toward financing
alternative energy research and infrastructure.
Over the last 30 years, countries like Brazil have used a mix of regulation and direct government investment to develop a biofuel industry; 70% of its new vehicles run on sugar-based ethanol.
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.167-169
Oct 1, 2006
3-way win: economy, environment, & stop funding terror
Progressives are the folks who believe in energy independence for America. We believe that we can harness homegrown alternative fuels and spur the production of fuel-efficient hybrid cars, and break our dependence on the world's most dangerous regions.
We understand that we get a three-for: We can save our economy, our environment, and stop funding both sides of the war on terror if we actually get serious about doing something about energy. We understand that.
Source: Annual 2006 Take Back America Conference
Jun 14, 2006
Conserve, develop alternative fuels, increase efficiencies
Q: How would you push greater fuel efficiency from auto makers?
KEYES: We need to develop proper alternative fuels. We need to develop ethanol. We need to push on the research, where breakthroughs are occurring, to get hydrogen from ethanol. By pushing
on that kind of research we'll be able to have a win for our farmers, in the agricultural sector, to improve the profitability of their product. We'll be able to have a win on the environment, because hydrogen, for instance, is more clean-burning.
OBAMA: We could save as much, in terms of our fuel, if we increased our fuel efficiency standards, as much as we would from getting Alaska drilling going immediately. And that's been the Bush strategy increasing production for oil and gas companies,
subsidizing them to the tune of 20 billion dollars, as opposed to thinking about how, not only, we can develop alternative fuels, but also how can we conserve energy and increase efficiencies available right now but have not been invested in.
Source: [Xref Keyes] IL Senate Debate
Oct 26, 2004
Sponsored legislations that improve energy efficiency
Obama co-sponsored a Renewable Portfolio Standard that mandates ten percent of total electric utility output must be renewable by 2012. He sponsored the Biodiesel Fuel Act to require diesel fuel sold in Illinois to contain at least two percent biodiesel
fuel by volume. He was chief co-sponsor of the Energy Efficiency Building Act and the Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards Act, which aim to improve energy efficiency in residential, commercial, and industrial buildings and in certain household products.
Source: Campaign website, ObamaForIllinois.org, "On the Issues"
Sep 28, 2004
20% nation's power supply from renewable sources by 2020
Neither American security, nor our economic potential, can afford to be held hostage by those half a world away because our nation is too dependent on others for our energy. This requires concrete steps to move us toward energy independence including
requiring that 20% of the nation's power supply portfolio come from renewable sources like wind, solar, biomass and geothermal energy by 2020, and that a percentage of our nation's fuel supply is provided by renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel.
Source: Campaign website, ObamaForIllinois.org, "On the Issues"
Sep 28, 2004
20% renewable energy by 2020
[We should] free America from its dependence on foreign oil. We must take concrete steps to move us toward energy independence including requiring that 20 percent of the nation's power supply portfolio come from renewable sources like
wind, solar, biomass and geothermal energy by 2020, and that a percentage of our nation's fuel supply is provided by renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel.
Source: Press Release, "Renewal of American Leadership "
Jul 12, 2004
Invest in alternative energy sources
Barack Obama believes that by investing in alternative energy sources and improving automobile fuel efficiency, America can be a leader in this global market while spurring new industries and creating jobs at home.
His "Energy Independence for Illinois" plan will reduce American dependence on foreign oil and promote emerging markets throughout the country.
Source: Campaign website, ObamaForIllinois.com
Jun 25, 2004
Increase CAFE to 40 mpg
Obama will increase Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) to 40 mpg for cars from their current mid-1980's level. Americans will save billions of dollars and millions of barrels of oil per day by implementing these already existing technologies.
Source: Campaign website, ObamaForIllinois.com
Jun 25, 2004
Tradable credits for renewable energy
Obama will support legislation requiring that by 2020, 20% of the nation's power supply portfolio comes from renewable sources like wind, solar, biomass and geothermal energy. Promoting renewable energy will create new investments and new jobs without
increasing prices. Obama has proposed a flexible market-based approach that allows electricity providers to either generate the renewable energy themselves, obtain it from other companies, or purchase credits from providers who exceed the standard.
Source: Campaign website, ObamaForIllinois.com
Jun 25, 2004
Renewable Fuels Standard: require ethanol in fuel supply
Obama will support requiring that 20% of the nation's power supply comes from renewable sources like wind, solar, biomass & geothermal. He will increase CAFE to 40 mpg for cars. He will create a Renewable Fuels Standard that requires that a percentage
of our fuel supply is provided by fuels such as ethanol. Oil companies should utilize the non-environmentally sensitive lands currently available. He will pressure the FTC to monitor oil mergers that decrease competition & increase the price of gas.
Source: Campaign website, ObamaForIllinois.com, ?On The Issues?
May 2, 2004
Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies.
Creating Long-term Energy Alternatives for the Nation (CLEAN) Act
Title I: Ending Subsidies for Big Oil Act--denying a deduction for income attributable to domestic production of oil, natural gas, or their related primary products.
Title II: Royalty Relief for American Consumers Act--to incorporate specified price thresholds for royalties on oil & gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico.
Title III: Strategic Energy Efficiency And Renewables Reserve--makes the Reserve available to accelerate the use of clean domestic renewable energy resources and alternative fuels.
Proponents support voting YES because:
This legislation seeks to end the unwarranted tax breaks & subsidies which have been lavished on Big Oil over the last several years, at a time of record prices at the gas pump and record oil industry profits. Big Oil is hitting the American taxpayer not once, not twice, but three times. They are hitting them at the pump, they are hitting them through the
Tax Code, and they are hitting them with royalty holidays put into oil in 1995 and again in 2005.
It is time to vote for the integrity of America's resources, to vote for the end of corporate welfare, to vote for a new era in the management of our public energy resources.
Opponents support voting NO because:
I am wearing this red shirt today, because this shirt is the color of the bill that we are debating, communist red. It is a taking. It will go to court, and it should be decided in court.
This bill will increase the competitive edge of foreign oil imported to this country. If the problem is foreign oil, why increase taxes and make it harder to produce American oil and gas? That makes no sense. We should insert taxes on all foreign oil imported. That would raise your money for renewable resources. But what we are doing here today is taxing our domestic oil. We are raising dollars supposedly for renewable resources, yet we are still burning fossil fuels.
Status: Bill passed Bill passed, 65-27
Reference: Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation (CLEAN);
Bill H.R.6
; vote number 2007-226
on Jun 21, 2007
Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal.
Voting YES would amend the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to make oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. It would be a violation for any foreign state:
to limit the production or distribution of oil & natural gas;
to set or maintain the price of oil & natural gas; or
to otherwise take any action in restraint of trade for oil & natural gas;
when such collective action has a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on the market, supply, price, or distribution of oil & natural gas in the US.
Proponents recommend voting YES because:
Our NOPEC bill will authorize filing suit against nations that participate in a conspiracy to limit the supply, or fix the price, of oil. In addition, it will specify that the doctrines of sovereign immunity do not exempt nations that participate in oil cartels from basic antitrust law.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
No one likes OPEC. But this amendment, in my opinion, would make bad law.
The Framers of the Constitution wisely assigned responsibility for formulating foreign policy and conducting foreign relations to the President and to the Congress, not to the law courts.
The amendment before us has its roots in a lawsuit filed by the labor union nearly 30 years ago. The union at that time charged OPEC with price fixing in violation of our antitrust laws. The trial court dismissed the case on the ground that OPEC members are sovereign nations and are immune from suit. Adopting the amendment will undoubtedly be very popular, but it is also very unwise.
In addition, we here in the Senate ought to consider how enactment of this amendment might affect our relations with OPEC members. What will be the international repercussions when the US starts awarding judgments against foreign nations and attaching their assets in this country? Will other nations start to view our trade policies--such as our nuclear trade restrictions--as violations of their antitrust laws?
Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning.
Amendment would require the consideration of global climate change, in planning, feasibility studies, & general reevaluation reports. Would require accounting for the costs & benefits from the impacts of global climate change on flood, storm, and drought risks; potential future impacts of global climate change-related weather events, such as increased hurricane activity, intensity, storm surge, sea level rise, and associated flooding; & employs nonstructural approaches and design modifications to avoid or prevent impacts to streams, wetlands, and floodplains that provide natural flood and storm buffers.
Proponents recommend voting YES because:
It just seems logical that we ask the Corps of Engineers to include in their analyses, judgments about the potential impact of global climate change. All this amendment seeks to do, as a matter of common sense, is to ask the Army Corps of Engineers to factor climate change into their future plans. Secondly, we are making a
statement here to finally recognize the reality of what is happening with respect to climate change.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
The same people today who are saying we are all going to die from global warming, just back in the middle 1970s were saying another ice age is coming and we are all going to die. Which way do you want it?
If a surge of anthropogenic gases--this CO2, methane, or whatever it is--were causing a warming period, then around 1945 we would have a warming period because in the middle 1940s we had the greatest increase in greenhouse gases. But what happened? It did not precipitate a warming period.
Peer reviewed evidence shows that the sun has actually been driving the temperature change. You don't have to be a scientist to know that the Sun can have something to do with climate change.
Implementing Kyoto would reduce the average annual household income nearly $2,700, at a time when the cost of all goods would rise sharply.
Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR.
To remove the establishment of an oil and gas leasing program in the Alaskan Coastal Plain. The original bill allows for an oil and gas leasing program in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Voteing YES on this amendment would remove that section, hence barring leasing in ANWR.
Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas.
To provide for appropriations for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Vote on a motion to waive the Budget Act in order to adopt an amendment that appropriates federal funds for the LIHEAP program. A 3/5th vote is required to amand a budget bi
Reference: Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program appropriation;
Bill S.AMDT.2033 to HR 2863
; vote number 2005-250
on Oct 5, 2005
Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%).
Amendment to improve the energy security of the United States and reduce United States dependence on foreign oil imports by 40% by 2025. The amendment seeks to reduce usage by 7.6 million barrels of oil a day, out of a total usage of 20 million barrels of oil a day. The bill without amendment seeks to reduce usage by 1 million barrels of oil a day. Opponents of the amendment said, "It would be disruptive of jobs if you set a 78 mile per gallon CAFÉ standard for cars, a 185-percent increase; a 60 mile per gallon standard for trucks, light trucks, a 174-percent increase. [The unamended version] is more in keeping with President Kennedy's "man on the Moon" goal. [The amended version] is a "man or woman on Mars" goal, and maybe we will get there one day, but it is unrealistic today."
Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Vote to adopt an amendment that would strike a provision in the concurrent resolution that recognizes revenue from oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The amendment says: "To ensure that legislation that would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, other federal lands, and the Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling receives full consideration and debate in the Senate under regular order, rather than being fast-tracked under reconciliation procedures; to ensure that receipts from such drilling destined for the federal treasury are fairly shared with local jurisdictions; and does not occur unless prohibitions against the export of Alaskan oil are enacted."
Reference: Arctic National Wildlife Refuge anti-drilling Amendment;
Bill S AMDT 168 to S.Con.Res. 18
; vote number 2005-52
on Mar 16, 2005
Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence.
Obama scores 100% by CAF on energy issues
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 CAF scores as follows:
0% - 30%: opposition of energy independence (approx. 206 members)
30% - 70%: mixed record on energy independence (approx. 77 members)
70%-100%: support for energy independence (approx. 183 members)
About the CAF (from their website, www.ourfuture.org):
The Campaign for America's Future (CAF) is a center for ideas and action that works to build an enduring majority for progressive change. The Campaign advances a progressive economic agenda and a vision of the future that works for the many, not simply the few. The Campaign is leading the fight for America's priorities--against privatization of Social Security, for investment in energy independence, good jobs and a sustainable economy, for an ethical and accountable Congress and for high quality public education.
About the CAF report, "Energy Independence: Record vs. Rhetoric":
Energy independence has surfaced as a defining issue in the current elections. Are most candidates and both parties truly committed? To help distinguish the demonstrated level of support for homegrown, clean energy alternatives, we examined the voting records of current U.S. Representatives and Senators on bills vital to promoting those interests. Key pieces of legislation included goals for independence, and subsidies for the development of alternatives compared to subsidies for drilling and digging. We then compared votes on these issues with campaign contributions from major oil interests. The results show strong inverse correlations between political contributions from big oil and votes for energy independence.
Source: CAF "Energy Independence" Report 06n-CAF on Dec 31, 2006
