Cavuto did not ID Lott as energy company lobbyist, even as Lott touted specific issues for which he lobbies
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: On Your World, Neil Cavuto hosted Trent Lott to discuss energy policy but failed to disclose that Lott is now a lobbyist for major energy companies. During the segment, Lott touted specific issues for which he lobbies, including "Algae to Ethanol technology" and offshore drilling.
On the March 11 edition of Fox News' Your World, Neil Cavuto hosted former Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) to discuss energy policy but failed to disclose that Lott is now a lobbyist for major energy companies. During the segment, Lott touted the Republican proposal to "[g]ive incentives" to oil and gas companies and criticized proposals such as tax increases that would offer "disincentives" for oil and gas companies; he even touted specific issues for which he lobbies, including "Algae to Ethanol technology" and offshore drilling. Lott is the co-founder of the Breaux Lott Leadership Group and is registered to lobby on behalf of oil and gas clients Algenol Biofuels, Chevron, Shell, and Plains Exploration & Production Co.
Cavuto began the segment by stating: "Republicans are rolling out their own version of stimulus -- 'no-cost stimulus' -- plans that increase the economy's activity but without you paying a dime. It's called, 'Drill more, tax less.' " During the interview, Lott stated that President Obama's "budget blueprint does everything it possibly can to include disincentives to go out and get more oil and gas and, frankly, other alternative fuels, such as nuclear." Lott later claimed:
LOTT: I think Republicans are saying that we clearly have a lot of oil and gas in the United States, natural gas, including in the Gulf of Mexico, where I'm from. One of the things the Obama plan does is to tax the royalties on the production out of the Gulf of Mexico -- absolutely the wrong way to go. But what they would do would run up to $80 billion in tax increases.
The Republican plan is the reverse of that. Give incentives and open up areas where we know we can safely drill for oil and gas. Also, pursue the alternatives every way we can. I mean, we can do different kinds of ethanol, including ethanol made from algae. We can get into obviously nuclear is something we need to work on -- biofuels. There are a lot of alternatives out there; the Republicans are saying explore them all. Don't put taxes on them, which is a disincentive to produce all these things.
A search of the Lobbying Disclosure Act Database found that Lott is registered to lobby Congress on behalf of the following energy companies:
- Algenol Biofuels Inc. Effective date of registration: 5/1/08. According to a lobbying report filed on 7/18/08, Lott's specific lobbying issue for Algenol is "[p]romoting Algae to Ethanol technology." During the Your World segment, Lott said that "we can do different kinds of ethanol, including ethanol made from algae" and cited biofuels as "something we need to work on."
- Plains Exploration & Production Co. (PXP). Effective date of registration: 1/1/08. According to its website, PXP "is an independent oil and gas company primarily engaged in the activities of acquiring, developing, exploring and producing oil and gas in its core areas of operation: California, Texas, Louisiana and Gulf of Mexico." According to a lobbying report filed on 4/21/08, Lott's specific lobbying issues are "Offshore Oil and Gas issues." During the Your World segment, Lott encouraged more offshore drilling, including specifically in the Gulf of Mexico.
- Chevron USA Inc. Effective date of registration: 2/15/08. According to his registration report, Lott's specific lobbying issues are "Trade, Climate Change, Energy Tax Issues."
- Shell Oil Co. Effective date of registration: 3/1/08. According to his registration report, Lott's specific lobbying issues are "Climate Change Issues, Offshore Oil and Gas Development."
During the segment, Cavuto simply identified Lott as the "former minority leader" and a U.S. senator. On-screen text identified Lott similarly:
Media Matters has previously noted that MSNBC hosted Lott to discuss energy policy but repeatedly failed to disclose that he is a lobbyist for oil and gas companies.
From the March 11 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
CAVUTO: Now, Republicans are rolling out their own version of stimulus -- "no-cost stimulus" -- plans that increase the economy's activity but without you paying a dime. It's called, "Drill more, tax less." They say it creates 2 million jobs, pump cash into the government. Former Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott all for it. Senator, this almost sounds too good to be true.
LOTT: No, it is definitely possible for us to have more energy production across the board -- oil and gas. Certainly, we're going to need it well into the future. I'm all for alternatives, you know, the conservation proposals. In fact, candidate Obama talked about a comprehensive energy plan that would include offshore oil and gas drilling, but his budget blueprint does everything it possibly can to include disincentives to go out and get more oil and gas and, frankly, other alternative fuels, such as nuclear --
CAVUTO: So how did they figure those, Senator, that --
LOTT: -- but it would raise billions of dollars in taxes.
CAVUTO: I'm sorry. How did they figure that this alone would do what all of his various stimulus measures are doing and then some?
LOTT: Well, I'm not sure I understand your question.
CAVUTO: Well, in other words, that this alone is the stimulus, that you don't need anything else.
LOTT: In the energy area?
CAVUTO: Yeah.
LOTT: Or all of the other budget stuff that's going on, the spending?
CAVUTO: The energy area, the Republican idea that this is the alternative to their stimulus plan, to the Democrats' plan.
LOTTL: Well, look, I think Republicans are saying that we clearly have a lot of oil and gas in the United States, natural gas, including in the Gulf of Mexico, where I'm from. One of the things the Obama plan does is to tax the royalties on the production out of the Gulf of Mexico -- absolutely the wrong way to go. But what they would do would run up to $80 billion in tax increases.
The Republican plan is the reverse of that. Give incentives and open up areas where we know we can safely drill for oil and gas. Also, pursue the alternatives every way we can. I mean, we can do different kinds of ethanol, including ethanol made from algae. We can get into obviously nuclear is something we need to work on -- biofuels. There are a lot of alternatives out there; the Republicans are saying explore them all. Don't put taxes on them, which is a disincentive to produce all these things.
CAVUTO: Real quickly, the president saying he's against earmarks signed on to a spending bill loaded with 'em. But 40 percent of those are earmarks are Republicans'. Are you disappointed in your old colleagues?
LOTT: Look, Neil, I'm going to be honest like I think you need to be on something like this. I used to put earmarks in there. I think you have to look at 'em case by case. A lot of these earmarks are not justified. They haven't been put in their properly. In the past, you had to get an authorization, and then you had to get it appropriated. This was clearly bloated. The bill is too big. The earmarks are way too many. I think that President Obama should veto this bill.
CAVUTO: All right. Well, he didn't. He signed on to it. Senator, always good seeing you, my friend. The former majority leader of the U.S. Senate, Trent Lott.
just another FACT that Fox Noise omits.
oh and lets not forget Lott's well known blatent racisim.....with strom thurmond no less. ya know i recall many here bashing robert byrd for his long ago kkk membership. well now there is a guy in the neo con echo chamber that is as near as bad as you can get.
let us also not forget his very public resignation of public service for a more lucrative lobbying position. cavuto is a joke outside the FOX walled encampment.
So Trent Lott's lobbying for Pond Scum. That's interesteing.
I kid. Actually I like using Algae for Ethanol a ton better than using Corn. Ethanol's still a Hydrocarbon, and won't do jack for global warming, but it's not a bad thing to take the pressure of the demand for gas , which could ease the cost (to the consumer) of tougher environmental regs. Lott's scum, but at leasst he's doing something semi- useful withhis time. (Using scum, ironically!)
Ethanol may be a Hydrocarbon but it does not release as much CO2 as Gasoline because it burns more compleatly.
Progressive,
Where does the ethanol come from?
Ethanol is a form of alchol. Alchol has the most compleat combustion of all hydrocarbons. This means it releases less CO2 than those hydrocarbons that have a less compleat combustion.
That's not the question I asked though, is it? Where does the ethanol come from?
If you know what alcohol is you will understand that it is fermented plant material.
So, you know that it may burn cleaner, but that it also has a lower efficiency and requires more energy to make, so it isn't as easy a comparison as you make it out to be.
Actualy fermentation can be accompilshed with very little enrgey from an outside source. Learn your physics.
How about growing the crops that will be fermented? How about the 34% less efficiency? How about retooling the engines to handle ethanol? Any other physics that I need to learn?
There is so much waiste in the crops that are grown that we can use that waiste to make the ethanol. Also in a properly tuned engine it is just as effeciant as has been found in other countries. The retooling of the engine is a one time cost that will be made up for in savings in just about one to two years max.
Also the retooling of engines will create jobs for a while and help the economy.
Progressive,
I am all for alternative fuels, bbut you can't make stuff up about them. There isn't any where near that amont of "waste" in the crops. It cost a lot more in energy and land to grow the crops needed than the fuel produced (using only corn as the feedstock like we do here in the US), the fuel itself is less efficient, requiring even more fuel to be produced and the infrastructure is not in place (engines, etc) to utilize.
Is there a future in ethanol? Maybe! We need to find a better feedstock (switchgrass or algae?), we need to integrate it into our current system and we need a huge investment in capital to make the transition.
So yes, there are many benefits, but there are just as many drawbacks that need to be addressed.
The stocks the stems the leaves that are not used and just throwen out provide more than enough also algae can be fermented.
Progressive,
Please don't comment on things you know nothing about. There isn't enough sugar in those things to make fermentation currently feasible.
There is a lot of research being done to convert that to ethanol (cellulosic ethanol) but the technology is not readily available or proven at this point.
Also, as for algae, again, they are in the research stages. Nothing has been proven economically feasible.
These parts of plants are what we get wood alcohol from and that is more energy efficent that grain or fruit alcohol.
All though a littel more toxic to ingest.
The Canadians have done a lot of work on Cellulosic ethanol. I have heard that their technology is at at an advanced stage. This country (USA) is always so reluctant to get help from other countries---Maybe in this case we could all benefit from cellulosic ethanol technology from canada.
Completely, completely wrong. 100% wrong. (See below)
If any of the original hydrocarbon DOESN'T burn then the CARBON stays in the original Hydro-Carbon form, and DOESN'T become CO2. (And the attached Hydrogen doesn't become H2O.)
ALL of the carbon that BURNS becomes CO or CO2. There's no other option.
A "complete burn" would produce MORE CO2 (and CO) per volume of fuel. A partial burn produce less CO2 (or CO) because the remaining Carbon stys in the fuel.
Con's and LIb's alike have broken many laws, buy none of them have yet broken the first law of thermodynaics. (The part about the CONSERVATION OF MASS?)
In any Carbon based combustion CO2 is a product of imcompleat combustion.
H20 vapor and carbon with the other impurities are the results of hydrocarbon combustion.
CH# + O2 = H2O + CO2
That's the combustion equation dude. You're wrong. You might be thinking of CO, but CO2 is the bulk of what comes out in combustion. Carbon that doesn't combust STAYS carbon, of in it's CH for. That's common sense. Combustion ADDS Oxegen to the molecule.
Go back to chemistry.
Learn how to spell complete, little fella.
Wrong. Conservation of mass my friend. When you burn a hydrocarbon the byproduct of COMPLETE combustion is H20 and CO2. That's why it's called a Hydro-Carbon. It chemical stucture is a cain of Carbon and Hydrogen atoms. And EVERYTHIGN that goies in MUST come out - in the form of H2O and CO2.
The amout of CO2 is a function ONLY of the amount of carbon in the fuel. ALL of the carbon that goes in will have to comes out. Hydrogen forms H2O when it burns, Carbon forms CO2 (and sometimes CO.) Ethanol's "complete burn" means less CO and it lack of Suflur (and other poluttants) means less SO2, smog, etc... It's better for overall POLLUTION do to it's "complete burns", but there just as much CO2. (More actually - unburnt gasolene keeps the Carbon in just that form - that's the part that DOESN'T become CO or CO2. So a "complete burn" woudl actually mean MORE CO2 per volume.)
Now HYDROGEN, used as a fuel, broduces no CO2. It can't - Hydrogen doesn't have any Carbon in it. (Duh) So only H2O comes out when it's burned. But if you burn ANYTHING organic (and that would be ethanol) the carbon becomes CO2, especially if you burn it "completely." (Otherwise it becomes CO.)
OK did some math, and you're actually sort of right, but it has nothing to do with the "complete burn"ing.
Here are some roungh numbers (and I'm rounding big time, so any chemists out there, feel free to correct me.)
1 gallon of "gas" produces 114,000 BTU. I gallon of Ethenol produces 76,100.
So you need ~40% more ethanol by volume for the same amount of energy.
Assume they have the same density. (just because I don't know.)
Ethenon is C2H6O. Using the atomic wieghts (24,2,32) Carbon is 35% of the mass of Ethanol.
Gas is a lot of things, but I'll approximate it using a single commonly present compound - C8H17. By the same calucaltion, Carbon is now 74% of the mass.
Now 1.4 times 35% only bring us to 50%. So you're RIGHT, but ity has to do with the Carbon content (chemical comp) per BTU prodcued. Also - I'm assuming equal densities. If Ethanol was more dense, the mass per volume would go up, and that would mean applying a positive multiplier to the carbon released. If it were less dense, then the Carbon would be only a % of the above, propornate to the relative densities. Also this assumes that my "gas" formula is pure. Other content (which we know is there - Sulphur, Lead, etc...) would REDUCE the Carbon as a % of overall mass. Of course SO2 (=> acid rain) isn't necessarily preferable to CO2... but I'm only talking about the GW aspect of it.
But my original point remains true that burning ANY hydrocarbon is not a long term solution to GW, because it will still release CO2 - and LOTS of it. Hydrogen alone doesn't have that problem, but we don't have the infrastructure to deliver it. ALSO - the energy it takes to produce either one would have to itself come from a clean source, or it won't matter.
Nuclear has no CO2 (or any otehr) emissions, but it makes its own waste. It's radioactive, b ut in SOLID FORM however, so it still may be more practical to manage than emissions which are in GASEOUS form. You ever try to hold onto a pound of gas/vapor? Kind of hard. A pound of soild? Pretty easy.
Solar, Wind... NO emissions. But they take up a lot of ROOM. (Same problem with hydroelectric - no emissions but a HUGE "footprint" all the same.) The long-term vision I like is geothermal. All the heat we could ever need, and it will bascially never go away - becasue we can't change the mass of the earth, and we can't change the gravitational constant of the universe. All we have to do is dig. Really, really deep. ;)
From what I have read of algae it sucks up a lot of CO2 while it grows and produces a lot more oil than other biofuels. It seems like a good prospect.
Oh, yeah there are definielt benefits to using Algea over other thinigs. All else being equal, far fewer people EAT IT. That alone makes it preferable.
But do really make any progress on GW, we need to get beyond the burning of hydrocarbons for energy. Nuclear in the short-term, but Solar, Wind and GEOTHERMAL in the long team.
He's sort of like T Boone Pickens. He's still a jerk but he can see the writing on the wall.
I agree on the algae angle also. Biotic reactors could be a useful addition to our energy production portfolio. There is the sneaking suspicion that the peoples good is not the formost of thoughts from Trent. Being on board a new potential monoplistic franchize is I feel, closer to his hearts desire.
Above for an earlyer post. For the last one, almost eggzackly my thoughts. Given some enjenuity, there are a few very promising hydrogen production processes, I'd like to see a cottage industry centered on hydrogen production
Hydrogen has GREAT potential for transportation (jast as one example) - Carbon emissions? ZERO.
But to GET hydrogen, you need to seperate it from something else - H2O for example (since getting from orgaic sources releases more Carbon!). THAT takes electricty, which would then need to come from a zero carbon emissions source. (Nuclear, Wind, Solar, Geothermal.)