The Republican Idea For Our Future

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58) is a statute which was passed by the United States Congress on July 29, 2005 and signed into law on August 8, 2005 at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The Act, described by proponents as an attempt to combat growing energy problems, provides tax incentives and loan guarantees for energy production of various types. The bill has benn criticized

by many as not doing enough for resolving the energy crisis but also endagering our enviromnet by not relying on cleaner more sufficient sources of energy. This bill concentraits on many areas as: provitions for the bill, tax breaks , changing of day light savings, and use of natural resources.

We as americans, especially

a " democrat" like myself will always critizize the decisions that a republican president like George W. Bush makes. So we the people, evaluate what exactly the bill has to offer and of course look for faults that hender us. So what is this law doing? Is it doing enough? Well, the energy bill, is offering almost $33.5 billion in tax incentives for coal, nuclear and oil companies, as well as conservation efforts. In the bill, the 240-189 votes approved opening 2000 acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling, the Washington Post reports. In sticking to drilling, nuclear, and other sources that produce chemicals, the government is not doing other things to solve our energy crisis where it benefits everybody. In my point of view, we are not using the advanced technology that we hold to get us ahead in this matter. These techniques do supply us with a vast amount of energy but cause harm to citizens or nature in one way or an other.

Since President Bush is a Texan, as well as his family being involved in the oil business favoritism is seen a lot. Taking a look at the president's cabinet, it boasts more CEOs than any other cabinet in U.S. history. Who are these people? Taking a look at some of his appointed cabinet members, they are mostly from the energy, extractive, and manufacturing sectors that rely on giant subsidies and create the worst pollution. In having all these ex CEOs as cabinet member it is pretty obvious that when the government contracts companies for drilling and such things that it will be some of the companies that these cabinet members worked for. Why is this? Bush's family is heavily involved in oil, that how the family came upon their fortune. A way to look at it is that in benefits him and his family by contracting close partners in the industry. George Jung, an ex cocaine kingpin once stated in his documentary regarding business partners, "What's good for them is good for us". This is how I view the Bush administration in trying to produce new energy sources. Thinking back to the reconstruction of Iraq, who got the contract? It was Halliburton, the company that Vice President Dick Cheney was CEO of. What a coincident right? That really looks like favoritism to me. Not enough? Well in 2001, according to Fahrenheit 9/11, President Bush appointed Hamid Karzi as president of Afghanistan, a former Unocal adviser which was a company connected into the whole oil business with Bush and his cabinet members that involved in building a huge pipeline. In my opinion Bush plays favoritism when it's a convenience to him and his cabinet members, not our economy or our problems. That proof speaks for itself.

The new bill had many activist groups protesting the bill saying that the new bill is not environmentally friendly. We in Texas, have some of the most polluted air due to the oil refineries, drilling, our coast, and other land masses. They produce energy for our state as well as produce energy for surrounding states. Is there better ways to produce energy in this country without having to pollute or airs? Of course there is. The bill concentrates on using nuclear, coal, and other things. What about solar energy? Solar Energy comes from the sun and can be used for many practical purposes, including generating electricity and heating water. In fact, using solar energy instead of fossil fuels to meet some of our energy needs reduces emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. These emission savings depend upon many factors, including where