Clinton unveils energy policy

In the latest edition of Hillary Clinton's "HillCast" -- otherwise known as those "chat" sessions on her web site -- the former First Lady unveiled her energy policy for if she wins the presidency.  You can watch the video here.

Because I get a creepy Manchurian/Stepford vibe from these chat sessions, instead of posting the video, here is a summary of her plan (WSJ):

Clinton proposes an “Apollo-like effort to make clean and alternativeenergy the energy of America.” The centerpiece: a Strategic Energy Fundto advance new technologies. The money — $50 billion over 10 years —would be extracted from the oil industry by ending tax breaks, imposinga two-year windfall profits “fee” and collecting all the royalties owedfor drilling on federal lands. Oil companies could make up for the feeby investing in ethanol, wind and other alternative energy sources.

That's definitely a good start.  Instead of the U.S. Treasury paying oil companies to drill on government land, as it is today, it should be the other way around.

Also, as the campaign moves along, it will be interesting to see how many of the candidates in both parties acknowledge the differences between "alternative energy" and "renewable energy."  All in all, there is a huge difference.  The government can list literally anything they want as an alternative energy -- even dirty coal.  It comes as no surprise that Bush's new energy plan focuses almost entirely on alternative energy, and not the other.

Comments

[ted K]

Yes, by all means, let's let Hillary take profits from companies as she deems fit.

Why doesn't this scare you Progressive Dems?

And here I thought you were all rooting for smaller government!

[ted K]

Just watched the vid and I don't see how a "man" could vote for Hillary.

Gross.

Who deems what is "excess profits?"
You make too much, you need to pay more.

Wait, that is Liberal/Progressives/Democrats all over.

Never mind.

You "guys" go vote for Hillary.

[George]

If you are making extreme profits by destroying the environment that every human being depends on, then the govt should step in. That's what they are there for. It's even economically correct because the destruction done to the air, water and the climate has significant costs that you dont see in your Exxon financial report. If you think that is Liberal - then fine.

Not that I'm a Clinton person. I dont honestly think she'd do shit in the end.

[ted K]

WELCOME TO SOCIALISM!

[George]

Hey, It's black and white Ted. All or nothing. I dont think you know what socialism is. So dont use words you cant define.

[ted K]

Oh Georgey boy, I cannot believe you would give Hillary a pass on wanting to just take profits from private businesses that she deems excessive.

The oil companies have Never, repeat NEVER, been found to be price gouging.

Where was all this interest in the oil companies when they were floundering, pouring money into R&D and struggling to find oil in dry Texas and other areas?

If Hillary really cares about the burden on gas and oil prices of us schlubs, why doesn't she propose to cut the federal tax on gas?

OOOOOOOOOO ouch!!
How would she answer that?

Or you for that matter.

[George]

She's not proposing taking profits. She's taking tax breaks away. And she should propose a federal tax on gas and it should be like 25% because it damages just like cigarettes do.

The country is run by the oil and military industry: Bush and Cheney. Excuse me if I don't cry for Exxon.

[Administrator: Todd]

Yeah. Big difference between Exxon and BP. They both are very powerful. But of the two, BP is heading in the direction of newnewable energy. Exxon is not. Therefore, Exxon will do whatever it can to block renewable energy legislation in an effort to hurt BP, their competitor.