Monday, June 9, 2008

Energy Choice, Cannon Style

So, Chris Cannon links to redstate (I know, I was shocked too) in order to argue that republicans are better on energy options. Funny thing about those options, they're all fossil fuels. Apparently to Cannon, the only choices we have when it comes to energy is in which form the millions of year old dead thing comes out of the ground. We can choose gas, solid, or liquid.

When it comes to other options, like the kind that aren't polluting, some of which are even renewable, well, Chris doesn't seem to be keen on those. Here's his recent voting history (follow the link to get the details on the bills).

05/21/2008 Alternative Energy Tax Incentives
HR 6049 N Bill Passed - House(263 - 160)

02/27/2008 Energy Bill
HR 5351 N Bill Passed - House(236 - 182)

12/18/2007 Energy Act of 2007
HR 6 N Concurrence Vote Passed - House(314 - 100)

12/06/2007 Energy Act of 2007
HR 6 N Concurrence Vote Passed - House(235 - 181)

08/04/2007 Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007
HR 3221 N Bill Passed - House(241 - 172)

08/04/2007 Renewable Energy Standards
H Amdt 748 to HR 3221 N Amendment Adopted - House(220 - 190)

08/04/2007 Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007
HR 2776 N Bill Passed - House(221 - 189)
Yes that's Chris Cannon (R - Mining) at his finest.

6 comments:

  1. Why make hard choices on energy policy? We can have both oil shale and tar sands if we want-- federal subsidies galore. And just think, as a bonus, the nature-lovers will get apoplexy!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well said. Cannon doesn't get it. Jason Chaffetz has an energy strategy that will work.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Trying to conserve6/10/2008 10:35 PM

    That's a lot of "no" votes on energy policy. Jason Chaffetz sees the bigger picture on energy and other issues too. Mr Cannon got my last three votes. Jason gets this one.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ...and gas prices continue to soar. They weren't this high in the 70's gasoline shortages. I remember the lines for gas, but not gas for $4.00/gallon!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Great Scott!6/12/2008 1:38 PM

    Well, we know that corn ethenol was a bad option because of what it has done to our food markets AND because of how much fossil fuel is required to produce it.

    Fossil fuel may be prevalent, but it's wreaking havoc on our environment. Now that fuel is at a price we as American's can't stomach (I actually took my bike in for a tune up and now I'm riding it whenever the errand I need to go on is ten miles or less (not counting grocery shopping), we should begin looking at some of the more obvious solutions that already are being utilized and are right beneath our nose--starting with CNG or Compressed Natural Gas.

    Natural gas is abundant, cheap (Utahn's can get it for $.63 cents per gallon), don't need to be beholden to other countries to get it, is environmentally friendly, and is renewable (it's mostly methane based), and can be run in most cars and trucks with a relatively simple and inexpensive conversion. Now if we could only get our representatives to get the EPA to back off and allow this to move forward, we could enjoy inexpensive fuel once again. Oh and one more thing I almost forgot. If you have a car that runs on CNG, you can drive in the commuter lane on I-15.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's a downhill slope, and our slide will not stop until our complete dependence on (not just on foreign but all) oil is gone. Just one more reason why Utahn's vote against their own values, election such visionless representatives, like Cannon and Hatch. It begins to look (to the rest of the country) as if we have nothing better to offer. And have you seen some of Cannon's floor speeches? Could he be any more of a kiss-ass? And to the commentor above, if Chaffetz wasn't all crazy Tom Tancredo on hating the brown people, I could possibly get behind him. Nope, I like my state, so my vote goes to the Democrats.

    ReplyDelete