How People Voted
 |
 |
38% For, 62% Against
Take Action
  |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
  |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
Discussion: S. 155, The Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007 (8 comments ↓)
- This item is from the 110th Congress (2007-2008) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.
No discussion on this article yet.
Learn More
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
aries333
February 13, 2007, 9:09pm (report abuse)This bill needs to pass... it's a matter of national security.
Suidae
February 14, 2007, 10:02am (report abuse)A necessary evil, we will need coal-to-liquid production capacity.
As long as we understand that it is necessary to develop sustainable energy solutions to replace fossil energy.
djiivu
March 23, 2007, 3:04pm (report abuse)An unnecessary evil. We could much more effectively reduce our dependence on energy imports by investing in and encouraging energy efficiency. A necessary increase in average fuel efficiency could decrease demand enough to make an increase in supply unnecessary.
Chris
May 29, 2007, 2:44pm (report abuse)An aweful idea that would only serve to increase our CO2 emissions. There are numerous ways to decrease our oil imports and not sacrafice our future climate.
justin
July 5, 2007, 9:18am (report abuse)If this bill is passed, it should require manditory carbon sequestration as well as mixing biomass with th coal
A Nona
January 13, 2008, 11:50pm (report abuse)Coal-to-liquids technology returns almost double greenhouse-gas emissions. This bill will speed up global warming.
Vote No on this for a better environment.
paul
November 17, 2008, 2:29pm (report abuse)pass it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
PAULY
November 17, 2008, 2:30pm (report abuse)PASS IT !!!!!!!!!