Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Hagel on the issues - ENERGY

Part two of my series on Chuck Hagel on the issues. The information comes from his new website.
ENERGY
  • Senator Hagel has supported environmentally responsible energy exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
  • Senator Hagel has introduced legislation in the Senate to require that all gasoline contain 10% ethanol by 2010, and supports producing 25% of America's energy from renewable resources by 2025.
  • Senator Hagel has supported the increased use of nuclear power, off-shore drilling, and a wider and deeper portfolio of energy resources.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

What is he running for? State Rep? This is a little thin, don't you think? As much as I am convinced Hagel is ready for prime time, his campaign unfortunately is not.

Charlie said...

It still early and the issues page lays out a brief introduction to the Senator's positions on what the campaign considers to be important issues.

I'm sure that there will be more in depth information at a later point, but this does give a nice starting point for people that don't know much about Chuck Hagel (which according to the polls I've seen is most people).

William Dalton said...

I have thought for some time that when it comes to resources upon which our national security depends, the best course is to put a tariff upon imports of them. This will have two positive effects - stimulate the development of these resources within our own territory, and provide a source of income that will permit lowering taxes on productive portions of the U.S. economy.

I know my libertarian friends will disagree, and they have their points, but to the extent we have to have taxes, these are the best to have.

Anonymous said...

From all I've read about Big Oil's record on the North Slope, "environmentally responsible energy exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge" was an oxymoron even before the BP pipeline disaster. The gain from likely output from ANWR when viewed both against (1)reasonable estimates of the extraction costs and very real potential for long-term damage and (2)current consumption levels make this a very bad bet considering the better alternatives that are out there. All polls I've seen show this proposal to be widely unpopular except perhaps among oil execs and folks who subscribe to the slogan, "What's Good for Business is Good for America - no exceptions!" I really wish Senator Hagel would reconsider his support. By the way, if it still exists, the Republicans for Environmental Protection outfit has produced some excellent work on this issue.