关于能源资源的研究

发布时间：2016-04-28 17:01

我专注于对五月花的人做正确的事情，所以对于他们我远离玩弄政治。我支持基础设施建设并且给大家都支付得起的能源更多机会。开发和输送风能，太阳能，水能，核能，煤炭，石油和天然气资源都伴随着风险，美国人努力使风险降到最低。毕竟，利用这些资源创造就业机会，改善我们的生活质量，并推动着我国经济发展。这些都是必须的，不应该感到愤恨。

阿肯色州是现代天然气革命的领导者 - 为什么会有人想拖我们国家的后腿？奥巴马政府自己的美国地质调查局显示，阿肯色大学与杜克大学合作的研究人员发现“没有系统性、区域性影响”在费耶特维尔页岩中天然气生产的地下水。

美国管道无可争议的是最安全的输送油的方式。每年他们输送超过110亿桶油，去年只有五万分之一出现了泄漏。2011年，，我投给了管道安全法案，奥巴马总统签署成为法律（PL112-090）。

Im focused on making things right for the people of Mayflower, so I'll leave playing politics to them. I support building infrastructure and greater access to affordable energy. Developing and transporting energy from wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, coal, oil and gas resources all come with risks, which Americans work hard to minimize.

After all, harnessing these resources creates jobs, improves the quality of our lives, and propels our economy forward. These are things to be proud of, not resent.

Arkansas is a leader in the modern natural gas revolution - why would anyone want to drag our state backwards? The Obama Administration's own U.S. Geological Survey study, with researchers from Duke University in cooperation with the University of Arkansas, found "no indication of systemic, regional effects" on groundwater from gas production in the Fayetteville Shale play.

American pipelines are indisputably the safest way to move oil. Every year, they transport more than 11 billion barrels, and last year, less than five ten-thousandths of one percent of it was lost to spills. In 2011, I voted for the Pipeline Safety Act, which President Obama signed into law (PL 112-090). It strengthened regulations and increased penalties on operators who break the rules. The existing Keystone pipeline is monitored via 16,000 pressure sensors refreshed every five seconds. The new Keystone XL project will include 57 additional safety measures, and the Obama Administration declared it would "have a degree of safety over any other." Last month, 17 Democrats and every Republican in the U.S. Senate voted in favor of building it. Polls show a large majority of Americans support it too. They recognize it's part of a smart, open, all-of-the-above energy security strategy, and would help millions of middle class families. We are all better off when energy is available and affordable.

Saying no to new energy infrastructure isn't a plan for the future. It simply means more oil is moved in riskier ways. As The New York Times described, the Obama Administration's latest environmental report on the Keystone XL pipeline "says that alternate means of transporting the oil - rail, truck, barge - also have significant environmental and economic impacts, including higher cost, noise, traffic, air pollution and the possibility of spills." The report concluded Keystone XL would have "no significant impacts" on resources along the proposed route.

Protecting the environment for my children and the next generation of Arkansans is important to me. Reducing risks and fueling our lives in a responsible way is the right thing to do. When accidents occur, communities come together, help each other pick up the pieces and turn problems into progress. Mayflower residents exemplify this spirit of recovery, and I'm committed to ensuring their lives are fully restored.

Sequestration Shows It's Time For A Spending Intervention
Nearly a year ago, on May 10, 2012, House Republicans passed a bill to replace President Obama's sequester idea with targeted spending cuts. Not a single Democrat supported it.

Unfortunately, because Democrats in the Senate did nothing with our bill-or the two others we passed-and President Obama never offered his own plan, sequestration began March 1.

The sequester was included in the Budget Control Act of 2011 because President Obama insisted on it, despite his recent attempts to pretend otherwise. That bill was a compromise that raised the debt ceiling and created a "supercommittee" to work out significant spending reforms. Sequestration was an incentive to agree: failure would trigger automatic, across-the-board spending cuts, half of them impacting national defense.

Those who long for compromise in Washington should take note: sequestration is a prime example of it. When House Republicans compromised with President Obama and voted for the Budget Control Act-as many urged them to do-it inevitably included some of his bad ideas. Sequestration disproportionately targets our military and threatens jobs. There are smarter ways to reform spending and reduce the deficit. Republicans passed three bills in 2012-H.R. 5652 on May 10, H.R. 6365 on September 13 and H.R. 6684 on December 20-to replace sequestration with common-sense savings.

Why would President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid oppose our replacement bills? Because the President is obsessed with raising taxes, and Washington Democrats are in denial about their spending addiction.You've probably seen President Obama on TV, trying to convince hardworking taxpayers to let Washington take even more of their money. Like most Arkansans, I'm not buying it. Workers' paychecks have shrunk enough already.

Sadly, the debate over President Obama's sequester has often sounded like just another blame game between the White House and Congress. Obviously, not all of President Obama's ideas are bad, but the facts are important, especially when he makes claims that simply aren't true.

On October 22, 2012, President Obama claimed, "the sequester is not something that I proposed, it's something that Congress has proposed. It will not happen." Less than four months later, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney contradicted the President, saying, "The sequester was one of the ideas put forward, yes, by the President's team." Democratic Senator Max Baucus, the Finance Committee's Chairman, agreed, saying, "The White House recommended it, frankly, back in August 2011." Of course, journalist Bob Woodward had already identified the sequester suggester on page 326 of his book, The Price of Politics-which Carney acknowledged February 19: "The sequestera

本文编号：37480