Bobby Jindal on Energy & Oil
Republican Governor; previously Representative (LA-1)
Energy jobs are good-paying jobs, but EPA disallows them
The way that folks can get better paying jobs with better benefits is if we have a growing economy. That means we have an energy plan that makes sense.
Those are good paying jobs--$50,000, $70,000, $90,000 a year jobs with benefits. But this president won't let us produce more energy on our domestic federal lands and waters.
He won't allow the Canadians to build the Keystone Pipeline. He's got an EPA that's doing everything they can to kill private sector jobs in America. I
want families to have better paying jobs and better benefits, but we're not going to get that with a government mandate, we're going to get that with a growing economy.
Source: GOP "Your Money/Your Vote" 2015 CNBC 2nd-tier debate
, Oct 28, 2015
Climate change is a Trojan Horse to increase regulation
Jindal said in 2014 that he believes humans have had some effect on the climate, but the true amount is uncertain. Jindal has also said that the Obama administration is using climate change as a "Trojan horse" in order to increase government regulation.
Jindal released his own 44-page energy plan called "Organizing Around Abundance" in 2014, in which he proposes eliminating many current environmental rules and instead focusing on forest management and other tools that he believes would not harm business
Source: PBS News Hour "2016 Candidate Stands" series
, Jun 24, 2015
The left loves energy to be expensive and scarce
Jindal conceded that human activity has something to do with climate change, but declined to agree that there is now widespread scientific consensus on the severity and urgency of the problem.
Because of what he views as a lack of consensus on
the gravity of the environmental threat, Jindal felt free to try to turn the science argument against the Obama administration. The president, the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies are "science deniers," he argued, because
they impose limits on carbon dioxide and other pollutants from "job-creating" businesses without really knowing how well those restrictions work.
He accused the administration of being on the wrong side of the faith divide in this
area. "The left loves energy to be expensive and scarce," he said. "It's almost a religious approach." Jindal has a detailed energy plan full of specific, thoughtful (and largely deregulatory) proposals.
Source: Huffington Post 2014 coverage of 2016 presidential hopefuls
, Sep 16, 2014
Keystone pipeline creates jobs without environmental damage
[The GOP Congress should say] increase domestic production of energy creating hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs. The Republican Party should be the party of growth and opportunity. Why not approve the Keystone Pipeline today?
In five years of study, tens of thousands of jobs, the Obama administration's own folks have said, "no, this is not going to do damage to the environment if we approve it versus rejecting it."
Source: Face the Nation 2014 interview: 2016 presidential hopefuls
, Feb 23, 2014
BP oil spill: $350M plan to dredge sand for barrier islands
Jindal kept complaining about what Washington hadn't done. "We've been fighting this oil for over a month now," he said. "Too often, we've found the response to be too little, too late."
He demanded the Army Corps of Engineers approve his $350 million plan to use dredged sand to rebuild the state's barrier islands as a natural buffer against the advancing oil, an idea environmental experts were calling harebrained.
Source: The Party's Over, by Charlie Crist, p.252-253
, Feb 4, 2014
Cheap, affordable domestic energy is economically critical
Q: On the Keystone Pipeline: The state department released a report saying it would have minimal effect on the environment. Is there any reason for the president to oppose it now?
JINDAL: Absolutely not, unless it's just purely ideological reasons.
You know, the reality is that the Canadians, one of our closest allies, want to help us become more energy independent. And this goes to an absolutely critical issue: cheap, affordable domestic energy is an absolute critical component for us reviving
our manufacturing-based economy. Here in Louisiana, we've got tens of billions of dollars capital investment coming in to our state, thanks to the fracking and thanks to the natural gas boom we see going on in our state and across other states.
We can see the same kind of investment across the country, in the steel industry, the fertilizer industry, the plastics industry. We can make things and we can bring investment and jobs--good paying jobs home from other countries.
Source: CNN SOTU 2014 interview series: 2016 presidential hopefuls
, Feb 2, 2014
Drilling moratorium was second disaster after BP spill
I told the president that the oil moratorium amounted to a second man-made disaster. And my message was simple: Louisianans shouldn't lose their jobs because the federal government can't do its job. Our belief is that federal officials should spend their
energies on getting serious about more rigorous oversight and inspection of oil rigs rather than punishing workers. The experts picked by the federal government made dozens of specific recommendations to improve safety. Experts have recommended (and we
have supported): a temporary pause, redundant blowout preventer equipment, federal inspectors on every rig, inspections of the safety records of each company and each rig, etc. Louisianans, of all people, don't want to see another drop of oil spilled int
the Gulf of Mexico or another tragic loss of life.
The president went on to assure me that anyone who lost their job would get a check from BP. I was amazed by the level of disconnect. The people of Louisiana want to work, not collect BP checks.
Source: Leadership and Crisis, by Bobby Jindal, p. 21-22
, Nov 15, 2010
Develop any & all methods of producing energy
What may surprise you is that along with being a big supporter of fossil fuels, I'm also a big proponent of developing any and all methods of producing energy, in order to make America energy independent.
Liberals need to accept that fossil fuels are
critical to our national security and to our economy, and that they can be developed in an environmentally responsible way. Conservatives, for our part, need to do more than simply shout "Drill, baby, drill"--we need to aggressively pursue the next
generation of renewable and clean energy production technologies.
Republicans seem instinctively to oppose cultivating energy sources favored by the environmental movement, such as solar and wind power. Likewise,
Democrats often stridently oppose the expansion of traditional energy sources such as oil, coal, and nuclear power. Here's an idea: how about we do it all? That's not a Republican or Democrat solution. That's an American solution.
Source: Leadership and Crisis, by Bobby Jindal, p.199-201
, Nov 15, 2010
Cap-and-trade is a jobs bill for other countries
The liberal attack on fossil fuels doesn't even make sense in the context of global warming--destroying our domestic energy production and manufacturing base and expanding our jobs abroad won't cut the world's carbon emissions. In fact, these jobs will
go to countries like Mexico, China, & India, while more of our oil and natural gas will come from countries like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, & Russia--all of which have much weaker environmental laws than we do. Do you really think a smokestack in Tijuana
will produce fewer emissions than one in San Diego?
Keep that in mind next time you hear the Democrats' proposals for a "cap and trade" scheme. In addition to increasing utility costs of homeowners, charging our own companies for releasing
carbon will provoke a lot of them simply to relocate to countries that don't charge these fees. Still, at least the Democrats' rhetoric is honest on this issue. Cap and trade IS a jobs bill--for other countries. It is a win/win--for the rest of the world
Source: Leadership and Crisis, by Bobby Jindal, p.209
, Nov 15, 2010
More renewables; more nuclear power, more drilling
We need urgent action to keep energy prices down. All of us remember what it felt like to pay $4 at the pump and unless we act now, those prices will return. To stop that from happening, we need to increase conservation, increase energy efficiency,
increase the use of alternative and renewable fuels, increase our use of nuclear power, and increase drilling for oil and gas here at home. We believe that if we unleash the innovative spirit of our citizens, we can achieve energy independence.
Source: GOP response to the 2009 State of the Union address
, Feb 24, 2009
Voted YES on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC.
Amends the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to declare it to be illegal for any foreign states to act collectively to limit the US price or distribution of oil, natural gas, or any other petroleum product. Denies a foreign state engaged in such conduct sovereign immunity from the jurisdiction of US courts
Proponents support voting YES because:
Gas prices have now reached an all-time record high, $3.27 a gallon, topping even the 1981 spike. This won't be the end of these skyrocketing price hikes either.
OPEC oil exports represent 70% of all the oil traded internationally. For years now, OPEC's price-fixing conspiracy has unfairly driven up the price and cost of imported crude oil to satisfy the greed of oil exporters. We have long decried OPEC, but have done little or nothing to stop this.
The time has come.
This bill makes fixing oil prices or illegal under US law, just as it would be for any company engaging in the same conduct. It attempts to break up this cartel and subject these colluders and their anticompetitive practices to the antitrust scrutiny that they so richly deserve.
Opponents support voting NO because:
Reference: No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act (NOPEC);
Bill H R 2264
; vote number 2007-398
on May 22, 2007
- We can only affect OPEC subsidiaries in the US. So the result of this bill would be to hurt US companies while not affecting OPEC itself.
- OPEC is a cartel, but we have to deal with it diplomatically. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was designed for US monopolies, not international state-run cartels.
- We should focus on domestic policies to affect gas prices. We cannot respond to a short-term crisis with a long-term response.
Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies.
Creating Long-term Energy Alternatives for the Nation (CLEAN) Act
- Title I: Ending Subsidies for Big Oil Act--denying a deduction for income attributable to domestic production of oil, natural gas, or their related primary products.
- Title II: Royalty Relief for American Consumers Act--to incorporate specified price thresholds for royalties on oil & gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico.
- Title III: Strategic Energy Efficiency And Renewables Reserve--makes the Reserve available to accelerate the use of clean domestic renewable energy resources and alternative fuels.
Proponents support voting YES because:
This legislation seeks to end the unwarranted tax breaks & subsidies which have been lavished on Big Oil over the last several years, at a time of record prices at the gas pump and record oil industry profits. Big Oil is hitting the American taxpayer not once, not twice, but three times. They are hitting them at the pump, they are hitting them through the
Tax Code, and they are hitting them with royalty holidays put into oil in 1995 and again in 2005.
It is time to vote for the integrity of America's resources, to vote for the end of corporate welfare, to vote for a new era in the management of our public energy resources.
Opponents support voting NO because:
I am wearing this red shirt today, because this shirt is the color of the bill that we are debating, communist red. It is a taking. It will go to court, and it should be decided in court.
This bill will increase the competitive edge of foreign oil imported to this country. If the problem is foreign oil, why increase taxes and make it harder to produce American oil and gas? That makes no sense. We should insert taxes on all foreign oil imported. That would raise your money for renewable resources. But what we are doing here today is taxing our domestic oil. We are raising dollars supposedly for renewable resources, yet we are still burning fossil fuels.
Reference: Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation(CLEAN);
Bill HR 6 ("First 100 hours")
; vote number 2007-040
on Jan 18, 2007
Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore.
Vote to amend a bill providing for exploration & production of mineral resources on the outer Continental Shelf. The underlying bill revises the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act's guidelines for natural gas lease administration. Voting YES on the amendment would maintain the 25-year moratorium on oil and gas drilling in environmentally sensitive areas offshore. Voting NO on the amendment would lift the 25-year moratorium, and establish incentives to renegotiate existing leases that fail to include market-based price caps.
Proponents support voting YES because:
This amendment would preserve the longstanding moratorium so important to coastal States. The amendment would also preserve the underlying bill's one redeeming feature, the renegotiating of the cash-cow leases now pouring billions of dollars into already stuffed oil industry coffers.
We have only 5% of the world's population, but 30% of the world's automobiles, and we produce 45% of the world's automotive carbon
dioxide emissions. This addiction harms our environment, our economy and our national security. This underlying bill attempts to bribe coastal States into drilling off their shores by promising them a lot more money.
Opponents support voting NO because:
For 30 years, opponents of American energy have cloaked their arguments in an environmental apocalypse. They have tried to make the argument that no matter what we do, it will destroy the environment.
This amendment takes out all of the energy production. It is a callous disregard for the jobs that have been lost over the last 30 years of following an anti-energy policy. The people who work in oil and gas, their jobs are in the Middle East or Canada. We have exported their jobs. If this amendment passes, we are going to send the rest of them. We should know how important it is to create jobs in this country, to create clean natural gas in this country, so that it can be the bridge to the future.
Reference: Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act;
Bill H R 4761
; vote number 2006-354
on Jun 29, 2006
Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries.
Voting YES would allow floor debate on H.R.5254, the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act, which provides for the following:
- The EPA, upon the request of a state governor, shall provide scheduling and financial assistance relevant to consideration of federal refinery authorizations.
- The President shall designate at least three closed military installations as potentially suitable for the construction of a refinery.
- Requires that at least one such site be designated as potentially suitable for construction of a refinery to refine biomass in order to produce biofuel.
Proponents of the resolution say:
- Over the last several years, we have seen gasoline prices increase steadily
- In the last 24 years, our refinery capacity has dropped from 19 million barrels a day to less than 17 million barrels a day.
- We must make build new refineries to meet our current demand and to prevent a loss of capacity due to another hurricane, or a terrorist attack
Opponents of the resolution say:
Reference: Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act;
Bill HR 5254 resolution H RES 842
; vote number 2006-228
on Jun 7, 2006
- $3 a gallon gas is a problem, but so is global warming, and so is our dependence on fossil fuels.
- Unfortunately, this bill represents another missed opportunity for strategic long-term national energy policy.
- There have been no new refineries built in the US since 1976, but there has not been one convincing example of a situation where the permitting process prevented construction of a refinery.
- We should reduce demand by promoting energy conservation and fuel efficient forms of transportation, and work to develop renewable sources of fuel.
- Taken together, these will help America move towards energy independence. And we are going to stop providing subsidies to companies that are making record profits.
Voted YES on authorizing construction of new oil refineries.
To expedite the construction of new refining capacity in the United States, to provide reliable and affordable energy for the American people, and for other purposes including:
Reference: Gasoline for Americas Security Act;
Bill HR 3893
; vote number 2005-519
on Oct 7, 2005
- Authorizing the President to designate sites on Federal land for construction of new oil refineries, including at least three on closed military bases
- Allowing the Secretary of Energy to enter into contracts with non-Federal entities to construct or restore new refineries that use crude oil or coal to produce gasoline or other fuel
- Establishing a program to encourage carpools by giving grants to states and to evaluate the use of the Internet to link riders with carpools, assist employers establish carpool programs, and market existing programs
- Authorizing any facility to use biomass debris as fuel if it meets certain standards, such as resulting from a major disaster
- $2.5 million to create an education campaign about gasoline conservation
Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence.
Jindal scores 0% by CAF on energy issues
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 CAF scores as follows:
About the CAF (from their website, www.ourfuture.org):
- 0% - 30%: opposition of energy independence (approx. 206 members)
- 30% - 70%: mixed record on energy independence (approx. 77 members)
- 70%-100%: support for energy independence (approx. 183 members)
The Campaign for America's Future (CAF) is a center for ideas and action that works to build an enduring majority for progressive change. The Campaign advances a progressive economic agenda and a vision of the future that works for the many, not simply the few. The Campaign is leading the fight for America's priorities--against privatization of Social Security, for investment in energy independence, good jobs and a sustainable economy, for an ethical and accountable Congress and for high quality public education.
About the CAF report, "Energy Independence: Record vs. Rhetoric":
Energy independence has surfaced as a defining issue in the current elections. Are most candidates and both parties truly committed? To help distinguish the demonstrated level of support for homegrown, clean energy alternatives, we examined the voting records of current U.S. Representatives and Senators on bills vital to promoting those interests. Key pieces of legislation included goals for independence, and subsidies for the development of alternatives compared to subsidies for drilling and digging. We then compared votes on these issues with campaign contributions from major oil interests. The results show strong inverse correlations between political contributions from big oil and votes for energy independence.
Source: CAF "Energy Independence" Report 06n-CAF on Dec 31, 2006
Stop harmful EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.
Jindal signed Letter from 20 Governors to leaders in Congress
We feel compelled to guard against a regulatory approach that would increase the cost of electricity and gasoline prices, manufactured products, and ultimately harm the competitiveness of the US economy. As governors, we strongly urge Congress to stop harmful EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions that could damage those vital interests. We ask that Congress continue its work to pass comprehensive legislation that balances the role of conservation and climate security with the production of abundant and affordable American energy.
The EPA has initiated efforts to impose greenhouse gas regulations that could be harmful to our economies at an especially critical time. As Governors, we are gravely concerned about such regulation.
EPA is not equipped to consider the very real potential for economic harm when regulating emissions. Without that consideration, regulation will place heavy administrative burdens on state environmental quality agencies, will be costly to consumers, and could be devastating to the economy and jobs.
We believe that EPA should offer input regarding complex energy and environmental policy initiatives, like reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but feel that these policies are best developed by elected representatives at the state and national level, not by a single federal agency. There is no question that broad bipartisan support exists to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while taking into consideration the difficult fiscal situation that our states and the nation face.
Source: Letter from 20 Governors to leaders in Congress 100310-Gov on Mar 10, 2010
Page last updated: Mar 12, 2016