So, the US could get back into the exporting of crude oil again. Interesting paradox as we cut our own appetite for oil, and respond by wetting someone else's appetite.
We understand the economic realities around using assets to make money. Yet the US shows complete disregard for their global commitment to other countries to reduce emissions when they ship dirty fossil fuel for others to burn. Did we not agree that our latest technology allows us to shift away from traditional fuels to clean, renewable sources? Obviously not if they see crude as a stable of the US future income.
We expect better than this. This is the old way of doing things. Keep the ban, cut costs, get efficient and get commuted in Washington, and around the world, to a new, sustainable industrial revolution.
House votes to lift 40-year-old ban on US crude oil exports
The House approved the bill on a bipartisan 261-159 vote. However, the White House has threatened to veto the bill should it make its way to the president’s desk, calling it unnecessary and arguing that the decision rests with the commerce secretary.
The bill heads next to the Senate. While it easily passed the House Friday, the 261-vote tally falls short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a presidential veto.
The export ban was signed into law by President Gerald Ford in 1975 in response to the oil embargo by Arab OPEC nations against the U.S. for its support of Israel in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. But repeal supporters say the policy is now outdated -- and failing to repeal it would cost jobs.
"In my view, America's energy boom has the potential to reset the economic foundation of our economy and improve our standing around the world," Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio said in a statement.
"Let’s use the peaceful tools of energy development while creating jobs in America [to] replace the weapons of war in Europe and the Middle East. Let’s use our influence for good by selling this American made product – produced by American workers. Let’s do it in a bipartisan fashion today,” Rep. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., said Friday.
Meanwhile, opponents say the bill would only benefit oil companies.
"This bill is an unconscionable giveaway to Big Oil at the expense of American consumers," said Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Fla.
Selling U.S. oil to foreign markets would result in higher gas prices at the pump and ultimately benefit China and other economic rivals, Castor said.
Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., said the bill is not needed as long as the U.S. continues to import millions of barrels of oil every day.
"Every barrel exported by this bill will have to be replaced by a barrel of imported oil," she said.
However, supporters of repeal have said that, should the ban be lifted, U.S. allies might be less likely to rely on Russia and possibly even Iran for their oil needs, which would have important national security benefits for the U.S.
“It is unfortunate that the White House fails to understand the national security and geopolitical benefits of lifting the ban on oil exports,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska., said in a statement Thursday.