Episode Information

John Larson on Energy
Where We Live - with John Dankosky
Share this Content

In this episode:

Representative John Larson joins us to discuss his policies and politics.


Episode Audio

52:01 minutes (24.97 MB)
Download this Episode

Congressman John Larson in WNPR's studio 3 in August, 2007: Photo By Chion WolfCongressman John Larson in WNPR's studio 3 in August, 2007: Photo By Chion Wolf John Larson began serving in the House in 1999 - and is now in his fifth term, representing the first congressional district.

Larson's tenure in Congress has been marked by a quick rise through the ranks of the Democratic party. He's Vice Chair of the Democratic Caucus helping to lead the agenda for the party that now controls the House.

Today, where we live, we'll continue our series of conversations with candidates for office this November and welcome back John Larson to take your questions.

We'll talk about energy policy, gas prices, banking bailouts, Iraq, Pakistan and the news of the day.

We'd like you to join the conversation, what questions do you have for your congressman? We'd love to hear from you, especially if you live in the First District.

See pictures of Where We Live's in-studio guests on WNPR's Flickr site.

Join the conversation! Add your suggestions, questions and comments below.

Related Content:

email to [email protected]


I disagree with a lot of the statements made by supposed experts on energy that have been featured by your network as of late. People have been saying that there is a short 100 to 150 year supply of oil in American held territories. Anyone who says this must have a bias towards increasing the price of oil on the open market and on gasoline. The fact is that we have a lot more oil than that within our domain. In 1991, a team of geologists doing a fault line survey off the eastern coast of Florida stumbled upon 2 very large oil fields. One is called the Mars field. The other is called the Auger field. The Mars field is 5 times the size in volume of all other US oil deposits combined including Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. The Auger field is 4 times the size of the Mars field. At our present rate of consumption, if we were to draw oil from these 2 fields only we could completely oil independent for the next 1200 years. To my knowledge, these fields have been relatively unused. I understand the need to switch over to cleaner burning alternatives or electric cars but not at the cost of being blatantly dishonest about our oil supply to the general public. If you look at the progress we have made in the 100 years, I doubt that it will take us another 1200 years to wean ourselves off of oil and onto more environmentally friendly alternatives. If you do not share this information that I have given you with your listeners, I will know that your radio station is not as independent a media source as I once thought. I will know that your bias lies wherever the money is. I hope you make the right choice. Oil is worth about $75 a barrel. Its perceived scarcity is controlled by the media. I hope to hear this information passed on to your listening audience in the near future. Thank you.


Drew Fuller

email to [email protected]


Expansion of offshore drilling in my opinion should receive low emphasis in terms of government funding except where certain oil fields will be quick and relatively low cost to develop. Even then, I believe each of the States should have the last word in respect to whether or not drilling is allowed. It is the States, their people, and their environment that will be at risk if there are environmental catastrophes or damage to on-shore residential or commercial properties and health consequences.

Drilling platforms are also very vulnerable to terrorist attack and destruction by natural events, e.g. hurricanes, earthquakes, tidal waves, at-sea tornados.

Off shore drilling is also very expensive and produces high priced oil, even though it may provide small and temporary extent help relieve dependency on foreign oil.


The U.S. needs a Manhattan-type project to tackle both the current and long term energy crisis of foreign oil dependency and prohibitively high oil prices.

The “Energy Independence Project” [ the “Project” ] needs to include a major emphasis on providing investment incentives to motivate energy conservation, oil conservation ( as a material resource ), and the development and creation of alternative energy sources.

The Project must consider every dimension of energy sourcing, production and energy use: financial, environmental, health, engineering, infrastructure needs, socio-economic impacts, private investment involvement and a lot more considerations that I’m not qualified to identify.

The Project should immediately address the current crisis and the intermediate and long term crisis that are looming and certain: However, all of these elements need to be integrated into produce a coherent single umbrella U.S. strategy.

The Project needs to have clearly defined, yet concise, objectives: One of the objectives should be to have alternative energy sources produce certain percentages of total U.S. energy demand by a set of dates. For example: 5% reduction in foreign oil demand by 2012; 15% by 2016; 30% by 2024; 60% by 2034, and so on. [ These may not be optimum numbers, but are provided to illustrate concept. ]

The Congress needs to enact legislation that will provide long-term, ongoing funding for the Project and its implementation. We can not afford to have a on-again, off-again effort.

Since the energy crisis is driving the economic downturn in the U.S. and progressively over the entire World, I recommend that the Energy Independence Project should be the number one issue on the agenda of the President who is elected in 2008.

Sincerely // Richard Southbury, CT

MDC, 1.6 Billion $ Oversight?

Congressman Larson,
What Federal and/or Local oversight is in place for the 1.6 billion dollar overhaul of the MDC wastewater re-build and will voters know how their tax dollars are being spent? Was the MDC effective in anticipating the needs and resolution of an antiquated wastewater system in Hartford; how can we as voters evaluate their (The MDC's) response?

East Hartford Dike System

Congressman Larson,
Have the Army Corps of Engineers' East Hartford Dike System requirements for flood protection been completed? Would you comment on safety, cost and durability of these efforts? Thanks!