Energy proposal
If our Legislature's Energy Committee, including my opponent, had been willing to take initiative on moving us toward increased use of alternative fuels, we would already be better off, in many ways. But the Legislature seems to show no real interest in taking action.
However, I have a proposal to move us toward alternative fuels.
A simple version of one option within the proposal is this:
1) grow more corn (ethanol) or soybeans (biodiesel) on Connecticut farms (keeping our farms, curbing sprawl);
2) use the corn to make ethanol in factories adjacent to the farms (creating jobs);
3) feed the corn byproduct to cows (again curbing sprawl);
4) use the cow manure to power a biomass facility and generate electricity (mitigating rising electric costs);
5) eliminate the “exclusivity clause” that prevents Connecticut’s small gas stations from selling alternative fuels. All these measures also reduce air pollution, protect the environment and improve public health.
But most importantly, we are involved in a mess in the Middle east, largely due to our dependence on Mideast oil. By moving toward alternative fuels, we’ll begin to reduce our dependence and disentangle ourselves from the mess over there.
Showing true leadership, Governor Rell has called for action on energy issues. But the "do-nothing" legislature has failed to act. We can do a lot more. (Of course, even before moving toward alternative fuels, we really need to conserve. That's one of the main reasons that I bought a hybrid this year. And by the way, I'm getting about 45mpg! And keep in mind that increased telecommuting would be a real home run... conserving oil and alleviating gridlock. The legislature ought to jumpstart a conversation with CT businesses on the possibility of increased telecommuting.)
For a more detailed analysis of my alternative fuels proposals, see:
1) The Outline
2) Consuming alt fuels
3) Manufacturing alt fuels
4) Oil by the numbers
5) Distributing alt fuels
Within these posts, I tried to include real-life examples of what other states, such as Indiana and New York, have done. We can do a lot better.
Tim White
State Representative candidate (R-89)
Bethany, Cheshire & Prospect
TimWhite98@yahoo.com
16 comments:
As you can see we don't get the majority of our oil from the Middle East:
Top Suppliers of U.S. Crude Oil 2004
(Thousand barrels/day)
Rank Country of Origin Thousand Barrels/day
1 Canada 1,616
2 Mexico 1,598
3 Saudi Arabia 1,495
4 Venezuela 1,297
5 Nigeria 1,078
6 Iraq 655
7 Angola 306
8 Kuwait 241
9 United Kingdom 238
10 Ecuador 232
The Gov called for action and submitted a plan last month, hardly a call to arms.
Her plan only cost the consumer more.
Why is the state fighting LNG or clean coal or clean nuclear?
Most homes were outfitted with electric heat in the 70's becuse nuclear power was to be the next best solution.
Anon 5:55... I'd still say that 27% is significant. If America lost that 27% today, we would be in serious trouble. That's why I want to move to alt fuels asap. As well, there are lots of other benefits to our health, the environment, farms, etc.
Anon 6:01... Gov. Rell called for action in her State of the State last January. That was the basis of my comment. As for "the state," do you mean AG Blumenthal? I'm really not sure what you mean. Personally though, I always try to be open-minded to a discussion.
I was thinking Dave Zoni's hair would be a good alternative fuel
Even if, say, only 25% of our oil comes from the middle east, we are still terribly vulnerable to events in that part of the world. The faster we move towards greater energy independence, the better.
If we cut back just 15% of our energy use by conservation, and generated just 10% of our energy needs by alternative energy, we'd effectively "replace" that portion of oil that comes from the middle east (assuming increased growth in energy demand also comes from alternative energy sources).
Tim is to be lauded for his far-reaching vision. Renewable and alternative energy may not be the issue that gets him the most votes, but it's crucial to our nation's security.
the LNG terminal proposed for LI Sound would supply new York City not Long Island or Connecticut. that's one good reason to oppose it here in CT.
as for growing corn in CT and turning it into ethanol, it ain't practical or smart but working to get our fuel stations outfitted to handle E-85 imported from the mid-West is both practical and smart.
anon 5:55... there's also the global geopolitical situation which really needs to be considered.
anon 2:37... in terms of distribution, we absolutely need to take on Big Oil. Pataki did it in NY. And other states are doing it.
Yeah, lets take on big oil. They are the devil.
Capitalism is bad lets move to socialism, the riots in France proved that isn't the way.
We the consumers can make the biggest change but I guesss people need an evil red herring like the oil companies or big pharma.
I know I'm a conservative because I believe in personal responsiblity.
Government is not the answer, if anything leave us alone.
Every time Tim said Vickie does do this she corected him. Then he would try to say something about her record and she would set the record straight.
Tim-you blew it and she is going to beat you!
anon 9:04... my thought is simple... Big Oil have franchise agreements with small business owners. Those agreements have "exclusivity clauses" with the franchises. That is, franchises must purchase fuel exclusively from their "parent."
By "taking on Big Oil," I mean that we should address those "exclusivity clauses."
If a franchise wishes to sell, for example, ethanol... then the Big Oil company will have the "right of first refusal." So business still has the opportunity to sell its product. However, Big Oil is also being put on notice that they need to get serious about alt fuels.
The issues at stake here are far greater than maintaining "laissez faire" business practices.
The main reason the govt buys oil from th Middle East is to ensure political support from Big Oil. With a bit of conservation by consumers, increased oil purchases from the many other oil suppliers that are Non- Mid East we can easily stop buying oil from the Mid East. The decision takes guts and our govt does not have politicians willing to make that choice. Oil should not be a an issue in the election between Tim and Vickie. Doing what is best for Cheshire, fixing our own backyard is the real issue. Local people do not care to hear what one little State Rep wants to do to solve a national issue. They want to know what CT and our Town is going to improve our town in ways that will benefit all.
"The main reason the govt buys oil from th Middle East is to ensure political support from Big Oil."
This statement isn;t even wrong.
The govt buys very little oil. Big Oil buys oil wherever it can be found.If Big Oil was a govnerment monopoliy or hundreds of Little Oil firm they would do the same thing. They obtain oil at the lowest price available. The economics of oil production means that the Middle East is the lowest cost producer. Even if America was a socialist country that geological and geopolitical fact would not change.
Yeah, the guy who has the Mobil/Exxon franchise and all the national marketing that goes alnog with it shouldn't be required to purcahse Exxon?Mobil products. McDonald's should be able to sell Whoppers and Ford Dealers get to sell Chevy Suburbans when they market is hot for them. White sounds like another Rell RINO.
anon 1:42... the Big Oil companies would be given the "right of first refusal." I think that's fair, considering the weight of the issues.
Petroleum products at the pump cost less today in real dollars than they did 30 years ago. Nevertheless, the little State of CT needs to get involved at the pump. I don't think so.
The problem in CT is with the local utility companies that own both parties in the state legislature not Big Oil
anon 9:52...speaking of correcting, you spelled "correcting" wrong...it's 2 r's - not 1.
Post a Comment