Florida off-shore drilling to be voted on

Skunky, what is the LA state plan for rising sealevels due to global warming? Even though there is debate about the realness of global warming, surely, they have some contingency plans just in case, right? If the sea-level does rise greatly, as many scientists predict may happen, all of NOLA and the surrounding disappearing wetlands will be under water. Will any of these correction plans to the wetlands that the State wants to work on, include a plan to protect the area if the sea-level does indeed rise as anticipated?

(This isn't intended to be a debate on global warming -- just looking ahead.)

Skunky, what is the LA state plan for rising sealevels due to global warming? Even though there is debate about the realness of global warming, surely, they have some contingency plans just in case, right? If the sea-level does rise greatly, as many scientists predict may happen, all of NOLA and the surrounding disappearing wetlands will be under water. Will any of these correction plans to the wetlands that the State wants to work on, include a plan to protect the area if the sea-level does indeed rise as anticipated?

(This isn't intended to be a debate on global warming -- just looking ahead.)

If that happens, the plan is to move:floor:

If that happens, the plan is to move:floor:

That might be a good plan. ;-)

Seriously speaking, the real problem again goes back to our gov't imposed addiction to fossil fuels. If the burning of fossil fuels is causing the holes in the Ozone layer, which leads to the melting of the Polar Caps, thereby causing the sea-level to rise, we don't need more drilling for oil, which in turn, keeps the gov't wheels greased and addicted to the cash and black gold. Instead, we need to ween gov't off of the oil and motor money, and encourage the R&D on alternative, cleaner fuels and high effeciency engines.

Over the last twenty years in the technology field, we have taken a room-full of extremely expensive computers and reduced it down to something that will fit into my pocket. In the same period of time in the automotive industry, we have not positively changed the fuel effeciency of the automotive engine used in the autos which we purchase. The 1979 VW Rabbit - Diesel, which my dad still owns, still gets around 45-48 mpg. After 27 years of time to improve the fuel effeciency, the 2007 VW Rabbit (not available in Diesel), according to the EPA, "rates the Rabbit's fuel economy at 22 mpg city/30 mpg highway." 😱 What happened? :idontno:

We are going the wrong way, IMHO.

That might be a good plan. ;-)

Seriously speaking, the real problem again goes back to our gov't imposed addiction to fossil fuels. If the burning of fossil fuels is causing the holes in the Ozone layer, which leads to the melting of the Polar Caps, thereby causing the sea-level to rise, we don't need more drilling for oil, which in turn, keeps the gov't wheels greased and addicted to the cash and black gold. Instead, we need to ween gov't off of the oil and motor money, and encourage the R&D on alternative, cleaner fuels and high effeciency engines.

Over the last twenty years in the technology field, we have taken a room-full of extremely expensive computers and reduced it down to something that will fit into my pocket. In the same period of time in the automotive industry, we have not positively changed the fuel effeciency of the automotive engine used in the autos which we purchase. The 1979 VW Rabbit - Diesel, which my dad still owns, still gets around 45-48 mpg. After 27 years of time to improve the fuel effeciency, the 2007 VW Rabbit (not available in Diesel), according to the EPA, "rates the Rabbit's fuel economy at 22 mpg city/30 mpg highway." 😱 What happened? :idontno:

We are going the wrong way, IMHO.

Looks like we both will need a U-HAUL smiley J! I have faith in the pressure of the marketplace to produce more energy efficient transportation options. Isn't there an engineer at Berkley who has designed a very viable electric car, but the price to build one is something like $150K? Let me ask you this-and this is really out of left field...what would you think if this bill in congress fails, and instead of depending on Washington to help us restore the wetlands, Louisiana decides to tax the living hell out of petroleum processed here? This would drive the price of fuel and any products that require transport to market (ALL products) up...do you think that is the sort of thing that could end our dependence and fund restoration? It probably isn't even legal, just a fantasy:roll:

Looks like we both will need a U-HAUL smiley J! I have faith in the pressure of the marketplace to produce more energy efficient transportation options. Isn't there an engineer at Berkley who has designed a very viable electric car, but the price to build one is something like $150K? Let me ask you this-and this is really out of left field...what would you think if this bill in congress fails, and instead of depending on Washington to help us restore the wetlands, Louisiana decides to tax the living hell out of petroleum processed here? This would drive the price of fuel and any products that require transport to market (ALL products) up...do you think that is the sort of thing that could end our dependence and fund restoration? It probably isn't even legal, just a fantasy:roll:

Wow, that map is much different from the realistic ones which I have seen before. I guess I will retreat back to the Atlantic/Gulf-front mountains of Western North Carolina, or maybe I will go buy some land in NF which will become a nice little island.

As I have stated before, unfortunately, gasoline going to 5$ a gallon will be the only thing that drives us consumers to push the automotive industry to change to high effeciency engines/vehicles. Then, alternative and cleaner fuels will look like a bargain. ;-)

I am not pushing for higher priced fuel, but that will be the only thing that makes us change our daily habit of fossil fuel consumption and dependency.

SJ, I haven't checked, but I think the EPA numbers for the Rabbit are for the 2.5 gas engine auto. I'll also wager the new car is heavier too. It's mindless to me the auto industry doesn't use composite body panels that weigh a fraction of steel and are much stronger. Sad to say, but we need a kick in the pants on this issue.

SJ, I haven't checked, but I think the EPA numbers for the Rabbit are for the 2.5 gas engine auto. I'll also wager the new car is heavier too. It's mindless to me the auto industry doesn't use composite body panels that weigh a fraction of steel and are much stronger. Sad to say, but we need a kick in the pants on this issue.

bob, hopefully the unfortunant hemorraging of GM, Ford, and the rest of their ilk, will force them to react. that and the fact that imports sell better than domestic. they must start thinking further out of the box. here's to hoping so.

bob, hopefully the unfortunant hemorraging of GM, Ford, and the rest of their ilk, will force them to react. that and the fact that imports sell better than domestic. they must start thinking further out of the box. here's to hoping so.

I am concerned that GM and Ford are willing to mothball manufacturing capability, send the jobs to Mexico and China, and try to make more money with less market share. Short term thinking has doomed them currently. When only a crisis forces you to change, your leadership is either corrupt and/or stupid. Of course, I think of the Kinks song, "Give the People What They Want", and I know why they continue to stamp out SUV's. I want an SUV too, just give me a hydrogen/fuelcell/electric drivetrain with composite body panels, so I don't need an extended warranty for guilt.

Hooray!

House approves offshore revenue sharing

By Bill Walsh
Washington bureau
WASHINGTON ? The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a sweeping tax?cut bill Friday that for the first time would time send a share of offshore oil and gas royalties to Louisiana to repair its fragile coast.

The 367-45 vote came after days of wrangling between House and Senate negotiators as Congress prepares to adjourn for the year and Republicans cede the majority to Democrats. The legislation now faces a Senate vote, which could come later today.

President Bush is expected to sign the bill if it gets to his desk.

The bill would open up 8.3 million acres in the eastern Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas exploration and share with coastal states 37.5 percent of royalties paid to the federal Treasury by companies leasing the property. Local officials have estimated it would generate $200 million through 2017 for Louisiana and $650 million annually thereafter as the state shares in revenues throughout the Gulf.

Supporters of the bill narrowly beat back an amendment to penalize oil companies that had not paid billions in royalties from the late 1990s. The amendment, while popular among lawmakers, lost 205-207 amid concerns that any changes in the bill would draw Senate opposition.

The bill?s fate in the Senate is unclear. Much will depend on whether the House later today attaches legislation opening trade with Haiti and Vietnam.
Several senators from textile-producing states have raised concerns about loosening restrictions on imports from the two nations. Louisiana fishers, already struggling with a glut of Vietnamese shrimp in catfish on the market, have also raised concerns about the trade measures.

This is proof that; republican = EVIL! You have no right to destroy our earth for your economic gain! Stick to molesting pages and leave us alone!

This is proof that; republican = EVIL! You have no right to destroy our earth for your economic gain! Stick to molesting pages and leave us alone!

I don't believe there are 367 Republicans in the House; didn't a large number of Democrats vote for this bill also?

This is proof that; republican = EVIL! You have no right to destroy our earth for your economic gain! Stick to molesting pages and leave us alone!

Wasn't the molested page from Louisiana? We need to save the coast and grow a whole new fresh crop of 'em. :funn:

This is proof that; republican = EVIL! You have no right to destroy our earth for your economic gain! Stick to molesting pages and leave us alone!

More oil rigs for Hurricane Alley. Makes me feel all tingly with patriotism.

House and Senate approve. Hooray for evil republicans and traitor democrats!
Congress approves offshore oil revenue sharing
By Bill Walsh
Washington bureau

WASHINGTON ? On the cusp of adjournment, Congress passed catch-all legislation early today that created for the first time a permanent source of federal financing to repair Louisiana?s eroding coastline and shore up its hurricane defenses.

The Senate vote today represented the capstone of generations? worth of lobbying by Louisiana lawmakers ever since the state in 1949 thumbed its nose at President Truman when he offered a 37.5 percent cut of offshore oil and gas royalties. The state?s gambit back then for more money failed and since has cost Louisiana tens of billions of dollars.

As it turned out, the deal approved by Congress after a marathon day of negotiations Friday would steer the same percentage to four Gulf Coast states from newly authorized offshore energy drilling. For Louisiana, it is projected to mean $200 million through 2017 and some $650 million annually thereafter as revenue sharing expands throughout the Gulf of Mexico.

?The Truman offer has finally been accepted for Louisiana and the Gulf states,? said Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., who has pushed for a share of federal energy royalties since she came to the Senate a decade ago. ?It is the cornerstone that has been laid down to protect and rebuild the Gulf coast.?

Just as Louisiana has been counting on a steady flow of federal money to repair an estimated $14 billion in coastal damage ? and several times more in storm- and flood-protection needs exposed by Hurricane Katrina ? Landrieu saw in the legislation the path toward political salvation.

Elected twice by narrow margins, she faces re-election in 2008 with a political base dispersed throughout the country after last year?s back-to-back hurricanes. The revenue-sharing success gives her a solid campaign platform from which to make a bid for a third term.

What Congress approved was a $45 billion package that extended a host of popular tax deductions, health care protections for low-income people, a preservation of fees for Medicare doctors as well as the expanded drilling and revenue-sharing provisions for the Gulf Coast. The most controversial item was an international trade package liberalizing relations with Haiti, Vietnam, and African and Andean nations.

Senate approval of the overall bill was seriously threatened by objections from textile-state senators who feared a flood of cheap foreign goods and the loss of local manufacturing jobs. Among those most worried were Louisiana fishers and shrimpers who have long complained about the glut of low-cost Vietnamese product flowing into the domestic seafood market.

?I?ve looked at these trade provisions very, very carefully, particularly with regard to Louisiana fishermen?s concerns about Vietnam,? Sen. David Vitter, R-La., said in a statement. ?Although I understand their very strong concerns, I?ve decided that both of these trade initiatives are, on balance, good for America and Louisiana.?

Had the free-trade opponents prevailed, the overall legislation ? including the revenue-sharing provisions ? would also have died as the House left for the year and the Senate prepared to close the books on the 109th Congress.

That drilling measure calls for the opening of 8.3 million acres in the eastern Gulf of Mexico that has been off limits to energy exploration. Four coastal states will share in the bids companies make to acquire the new leases and then enjoy a 37.5 percent share of the royalties they pay on the oil and gas they extract.

Earlier this year, Louisiana amended its Constitution to earmark its share for coastal and wetlands restoration. Despite the promised protections, the bill was fiercely opposed by environmental groups who said conservation shouldn?t be tied to expanded offshore oil and gas drilling.

The erosion of the state?s coast, partly through decades of offshore drilling activity and partly through other man-made hazards, has left Louisiana increasingly vulnerable to the deadly storms that swirl every hurricane season in the Gulf of Mexico. Hurricane Katrina, only a moderate storm when it came ashore 14 months ago, showed just how exposed the region is and helped focus national attention on the state?s efforts to erect a coastal buffer.

Markey?s maneuver

Weeks of delicate negotiations came close to unraveling Friday afternoon in the House when Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., launched an offensive against the legislation, saying that four states didn?t deserve to share in revenue from property owned by all Americans. Standing in front of a U.S. map, with 46 states shaded red and four coastal states colored suggestively green, Markey said, ?If you are one of the other 46 states, you should hang your head in shame.?

In a clever political maneuver, Markey offered a hard-to-oppose amendment that would force energy companies to pay tens of billions dollars in disputed royalties dating from the late 1990s or face a ban on drilling in the Gulf. The amendment also would protect millions of middle-class Americans from being hit with the Alternative Minimum Tax, an enticing offer that Markey practically dared his colleagues to vote against.

But Republican leaders and Gulf state lawmakers, including Reps. Bobby Jindal, R-Kenner, and Charlie Melancon, D-Napoleonville, leaned on their colleagues to resist voting for the amendment knowing that the Senate had insisted on a bill free of alterations, no matter how politically satisfying. Markey?s amendment lost, 205-207.

?Today is a historic victory for Louisiana?s future,? Melancon said.

?We cleared a major obstacle, which was a poison pill amendment, in getting this done,? Jindal said. ?I think we?ve got the hard work about done.?

Among dozens of other things, the House-passed measure would:

Direct 12.5 percent of new Gulf offshore royalties to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which pays for parks and other public open spaces.

Extend until 2010 a Katrina-related tax incentive designed to encourage businesses to invest in the hurricane-damaged Gulf Coast. The cost would be $465 million over 10 years. Businesses could be allowed to depreciate 50 percent of their capital costs in a single year, although some local officials were upset that eight Louisiana parishes were excluded.