A Lame Duck Energy Bill? Hopefully not...

Before recessing to attend to last week's election festivities, the House and Senate each passed versions of an "energy bill." Neither deserves to be called an energy bill, because such nomenclature deserves comprehensive substance behind it. The Senate version is narrow in scope, and the House bill is, let's just say, not overly substantive.

The Senate bill, co-sponsored by Mary Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana, is a narrowly drawn measure that would open a section of the Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas exploration and use part of the royalties to help rebuild Louisiana’s battered wetlands and barrier islands. This page, setting aside earlier misgivings, has supported her bill because of its limited scope and its demonstrably worthy environmental objectives.

The House bill, by contrast, is a broad, mischievous and badly conceived piece of work sponsored by Richard Pombo, Republican of California, that, in a stroke, would lift a long-standing federal moratorium on oil and gas drilling along the entire American coastline. The bill has been vigorously opposed by most state governors from Maine to California.

This is from the New York Times editorial page who ask Congress to wait and address this bill in full session... and hopefully come together on legislation that actually leads to the results the politicians say it will, i.e. less dependence on fossil fuels (foreign or otherwise), expanded use of clean energy, and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, all without lifting necessary environmental regulations and moratoriums on drilling.

MW