Search for...
Follow @ontheissuesorg
OnTheIssuesLogo

Tom Tancredo on Energy & Oil

Republican Representative (CO-6)


Give incentives in R&D to find new energy sources

I donít believe in mandates. I donít believe that biofuel usage mandates should be increased. I believe that the market is the best determinant of exactly how these problems should be addressed. I donít mind and I would not be opposed to any investment in research and development, but the idea that the government will make a decision about what is the right amount of mandate to impose on the rest of the country. It never works out right. I trust the market more than I do the government.
Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Republican Debate , Dec 12, 2007

Drill off the coasts of Florida and California

Q: Where do you draw the line? Do you support drilling/exploration off the coasts of Florida and California? A: You bet. I would agree to exploration off the coasts. How fair is it today that Louisiana is producing all the oil that California is consuming, and they refuse to allow the exploration of oil of their coasts? Iíd say if you wonít allow it, you canít use it--the stuff that weíre getting from Louisiana.
Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan , Oct 9, 2007

Global warming could be from humans, or could be nature

Q: Do the US and Europe bear a special responsibility for global warming because we put most of the stuff up there?

A: First of all, the whole issue of global warming, for every single scientist that tells you itís happening and that itís our fault -- and theyíll stack up to here in reports -- I can stack up another group of reports that say just the opposite. I donít know whether or not we are responsible, we the human race, are responsible for global warming. It certainly could be happening, it certainly could be a natural phenomenon. If itís the latter, of course there isnít much we can do about that. If itís the former, there is something that we can do about it, and Iím all for it, and that is of course to reduce our dependence on petroleum products. If we do that, we automatically reduce the carbon emissions that people claim are causing global warming. And Iím all for doing that.

Source: 2007 Republican Debate in South Carolina , May 15, 2007

FactCheck: Global warming has dissent, but not 50-50 split

Tancredo claimed that scientific studies were equally split on the existence of global warming and whether humans are responsible. Actually, we find that an overwhelming majority of the scientific community agrees that global warming is taking place and that human activity is predominantly to blame. Most recently the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), overseen jointly by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization, released a report representing the work of 600 authors from 40 countries and 113 government representatives, saying, ďThe primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial period results from fossil fuel use.Ē Itís true that there are dissenters to this consensus view. But the split is by no means 50-50 as Tancredo claimed.
Source: FactCheck on 2007 Republican Debate in South Carolina , May 15, 2007

Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets.

Congressional Summary:Extends the tax credit for producing electricity from renewable resources:

Proponent's argument to vote Yes: Rep. RICHARD NEAL (D, MA-2): This bill contains extensions of popular tax incentives that expired at the end of last year. This needs to get under way. The R&D tax credit is important. This bill includes a number of popular and forward-thinking incentives for energy efficiency. This is a very balanced bill which does no harm to the Federal Treasury. It asks that hedge fund managers pay a bit more, and it delays an international tax break that hasn't gone into effect yet. It is responsible legislation.

Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. DAVE CAMP (R, MI-4): We are conducting another purely political exercise on a tax bill that is doomed in the other body because of our House majority's insistence on adhering to the misguided PAYGO rules. The Senate acted on a bipartisan basis to find common ground on this issue. They approved a comprehensive tax relief package containing extenders provisions that are not fully offset, as many Democrats would prefer, but contain more offsets than Republicans would like. Why is this our only option? Because the Senate, which has labored long and hard to develop that compromise, has indicated in no uncertain terms that it is not going to reconsider these issues again this year.

[The bill was killed in the Senate].

Reference: Renewable Energy and Job Creation Tax Act; Bill H.R.7060 ; vote number 2008-H649 on Sep 26, 2008

Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation.

OnTheIssues.org Explanation: This bill passed the House but was killed in the Senate on a rejected Cloture Motion, Senate rollcall #150

Congressional Summary: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide Tax incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, and to provide individual income tax relief.