Well Thank God For a Republican Senate: ANWAR Drilling Passed

[PittsburghAfterDark]

By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Amid the backdrop of soaring oil and gasoline prices, a sharply divided Senate on Wednesday voted to open the ecologically rich Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling, delivering a major energy policy win for President Bush (news - web sites).

The Senate, by a 51-49 vote, rejected an attempt by Democrats and GOP moderates to remove a refuge drilling provision from next year's budget, preventing opponents from using a filibuster — a tactic that has blocked repeated past attempts to open the Alaska refuge to oil companies.

The action, assuming Congress agrees on a budget, clears the way for approving drilling in the refuge later this year, drilling supporters said.

The oil industry has sought for more than two decades to get access to what is believed to be billions of barrels of oil beneath the 1.5 million-acre coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the northern eastern corner of Alaska.

Environmentalists have fought such development and argued that despite improve environmental controls a web of pipelines and drilling platforms would harm calving caribou, polar bears and millions of migratory birds that use the coastal plain.

Bush has called tapping the reserve's oil a critical part of the nation's energy security and a way to reduce America's reliance on imported oil, which account for more than half of the 20 million barrels of crude use daily. The Alaska refuge could supply as much as 1 million barrels day at peak production, drilling supporters said.

"We won't see this oil for 10 years. It will have minimal impact," argued Sen. Maria Cantwell (news, bio, voting record), D-Wash., a co-sponsor of the amendment that would have stripped the arctic refuge provision from the budget document. It is "foolish to say oil development and a wildlife refuge can coexist," she said.

Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), D-Mass., argued that more oil would be saved if Congress enacted an energy policy focusing on conservation, more efficient cars and trucks and increased reliance on renewable fuels and expanded oil development in the deep-water Gulf where there are significant reserves.

"The fact is (drilling in ANWR) is going to be destructive," said Kerry.

But drilling proponents argued that modern drilling technology can safeguard the refuge and still tap the likely — though not yet certain — 10.4 billion barrels of crude in the refuge.

"Some people say we ought to conserve more. They say we ought to conserve instead of producing this oil," said Sen. Pete Domenici (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., "But we need to do everything. We have to conserve and produce where we can."

The vote Wednesday contrasted with the last time the Senate took up the ANWR drilling issue two years ago. Then, an attempt to include it in the budget was defeated. But drilling supporters gained strength last November when Republicans picked up three additional seats, all senators who favored drilling in the refuge.
Yahoo/AP (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&u=/ap/20050316/ap_on_go_co/arctic_drilling_10&printer=1)

We have to be the only nation on Earth with a group of people dumb enough to think caribou were more important than energy for growth.

Thank God!

[zion]

The oil industry has sought for more than two decades to get access to what is believed to be billions of barrels of oil

I think that pretty much says it all.

[onetrackmind]

wooohoooooo!!!!! I'm not republican but i'll give credit when credit is due.

[sblymnlcrymnl]

I'll probably never go to Alaska anyway, go ahead and destroy the wilderness there. Anything to save a few cents per gallon. :roll:

I don't really care about Caribou but I don't see this making a major impact anytime soon.

[dtcarson]

Of course it won't, it takes time to build those drills and refineries and process it all.
Does that mean we shouldn't do it? No. I guess all the 'progressives' don't like planning for the future, and preventing near-future crises, like Social Security or dependence on foreign oil.
I agree with John Kerry's intent, where he suggests alternative methods or greater fuel efficiency. I disagree that government is the way to get that. The best way to get GM or Dodge or Nissan to create more fuel efficient cars is for consumers to demand them--and the best way to get that to happen is for the price of oil/gas to skyrocket.
i definitely don't think we should stop putting oil in the Strategic Reserve; that is for national crises, not slightly higher prices.
Some facts about ANWR:
'the refuge in northeast Alaska covers 19.6 million acres"
"To the west of the refuge lies Prudhoe Bay and existing oil fields that account for 15 percent of domestic production." so its quite likely that there is a lot of oil under ANWR.
"By law, only a specific area on ANWR's coastal plain may be opened to drilling....it covers 1.5 million acres."
"Drilling supporters say the total area needed for the drilling facilities would be just 2,000 acres."

2,000 acres. Just over 3 square miles. Out of 30000+ square miles. Much ado about nothing. If we can help free ourselves from dependence on foreign oil, and save some money [and create jobs for Americans!] at the same time, I'll gladly give up 1/1000 of 1% of a wildlife 'refuge.'

From the well known conservative rag, MSNBC.com.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7159486/

Wait a minute, *Kerry* wants to drill inthe Gulf? What about all the fish, all the coral, all the Nature down there? What about the hazards of transporting oil via ship, rather than an established pipeline? And why does he want to drill at *all*, I thought he wanted an energy plan focusing on efficiency and conservation?

[MrBadExample]

Dubya takes care of his own.

Anybody remember all that Iraqi oil that was going to pay for the war?

[dtcarson]

Nope. Then again, I didn't listen to Air America before the war, or those MoveOn/Soros nuts shouting the oh-so-original and oh-so-factless No Blood For Oil.

And as one of 'his own,' that is, an American, I'm glad he's 'taking care' of this.

Then again, I thought he was President? IIRC, this was signed by the Senate, none of whose names are 'Bush.'

[MrBadExample]

Apparently you don't listen to paul Wolfowitz either:

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: “There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03

Are you really that dumb to believe that the White House hasn't been pushing for this? Bush is only looking out for his oil buddies.

[Msut77]

Anyone else want to second the motion to put all the industrial waste into PAD's backyard?

Nope. Then again, I didn't listen to Air America before the war

Im almost positive Air America didnt exist before the war.

[E-Z-B]

Amazing. This is Bush's solution to the current energy crisis: 10 years of work & drilling for 6 months supply of oil.

[usickenme]

Does that mean we shouldn't do it? No. I guess all the 'progressives' don't like planning for the future, and preventing near-future crises, like Social Security or dependence on foreign oil.
?

You are unbelievable. Do the math. 10.4 billion (at most) divided by 20 million used a day (current usage like to increase) = a whopping 500 days of oil

Yeah a band-aid on a severed artery is really doing a hell of a lot of good.

All the president need is suckers like you and PAD to believe it.

as for Bush fixing SS..that's a laugh.

President Bush (news - web sites) said on Wednesday he would not send Congress a specific plan to change Social Security (news - web sites) because it would be "dead on arrival" and admitted his idea of personal accounts would not fix the retirement system.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=5&u=/nm/20050316/pl_nm/retirement_bush_dc

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Anyone else want to second the motion to put all the industrial waste into PAD's backyard?

Santorum, Rick - (R - PA)
511 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 2051
(202) 224-6324
http://santorum.senate.gov/contactform.cfm

Specter, Arlen - (R - PA)
711 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4254
E-mail: arlen_specter@specter.senate.gov

Congressman Tim Murphy - (R)
18th District Pennsylvania
322 Cannon Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-2301
Fax: (202) 225-1844

There you go, call and write them all.

Tell them you want any industrial waste from ANWAR drilling to end up in Monroeville, PA becawse dats where mean olwd PAD wesides. See if they don't laugh in your dumb ass face like I am.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Allow me to show you Msut77's keyboard as he contemplates a clever response....
http://img180.exs.cx/img180/212/woot5tw.jpg

Jackass.

[alonzomourning23]

I was just going to post this. This is the first time in years where a story actually made me feel sick and demoralized, for some reason even more than bush's re-election. So what, now we can cause irreversable damage to a wildlife refuge to get more oil, lower prices etc. God forbid people should actually have to pay for/cut down on their excessive oil use or look for alternative sources. I have no idea how long it will help, but lets say it somehow even lasted 20 years. 100 years from now I doubt people are going to be saying it was worth.

Does that mean we shouldn't do it? No. I guess all the 'progressives' don't like planning for the future, and preventing near-future crises, like Social Security or dependence on foreign oil.

Ya, because irreversable damage is worth a short term fix.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Welcome to Beautiful ANWAR! I'm PAD, Your Friendly Tour Guide.
http://www.anwr.org/gallery/images/45-Coastal_Plain_in_winter.jpg
Notice in ANWAR we have two kinds of solid water... snow AND ice!

Below we have.... SPRING in ANWAR!
http://www.anwr.org/gallery/images/46-Coastal_Plain_Spring.jpg
http://www.anwr.org/gallery/images/47-Coastal_Plain_spring2.jpg
MMMM, Another season coming, here's SUMMER in ANWAR!
http://www.anwr.org/gallery/images/48-Coastal_Plain_summer.jpg
http://www.anwr.org/gallery/images/50-Coastal_Plain_summer3.jpg
http://www.anwr.org/gallery/images/51-Coastal_Plain_summer4.jpg

DRILL IT!

But PAD! PAD! You evil oil grubbing conservative! What about the animals! What about the CARIBOU!
http://anwr.org/gallery/images/17-Caribou_no_impact.jpg
Caribou LOVE oil production!

What about the BABY caribou!?!?
http://anwr.org/gallery/images/15-calf%20under%20pipeline.jpg
Baby caribou love the warmth from oil flowing south!

But, but, but PAD!!!!! What about the BEARS!!?!??!?
http://anwr.org/gallery/images/12-Bears_at_play.jpg
Bears love oil pipelines, look at how happy they are playing on the warm pipes!

But, but, but PAD!!!! The bears can't migrate easily anymore, the pipline breaks their migration routes!
http://anwr.org/gallery/images/11-Bears%20on%20pipeline.jpg
Looks like the bears are smarter than the people that say the pipelines break their migration routes.

DRILL IT BABY! DRILL IT ALL! WOOOOOHOOOOO!

[alonzomourning23]

Here's an idea, show actual evidence if you want to argue that there are no animals in the wildlife refuge (though you later pictures refute this), or that oil drilling benefits nature. Though your opinions often seem to be lacking in evidence, so I shouldn't be suprised. Also, the point of preservation isn't to benefit us. I really hate the people who voted for/supported this.


--The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge covers 19.6 million acres.


--It is home to 45 different species of mammals -- including the polar bear, wolf and moose -- plus 36 species of fish and 180 species of birds.


--The oil debate focuses on 1.5 million acres, where the U.S. Geological Survey estimated there could be 5.6 billion to 16 billion barrels of oil.


--Drilling supporters say it would reduce dependency on foreign oil, add jobs and have little impact on the area.


--Opponents say it will irreparably harm a fragile environment, that oil won't flow for a decade and that it won't dent the 20 million barrels the U.S. uses daily.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/16/arctic.drilling.ap/index.html

[Drocket]

Animals love oil!
http://www.harperchildrens.com/coverimages/large/0064451216.jpg

[coffman]

If congress keeps making choices like this, it won't be long until gas is at $3.00 per gallon. Fortunately, even though the budget passed it still has to be reconciled with the house. There are other controversial items in the budget, so there is still a good chance the overall budget will not be passed in its current form. PAD shows a profound lack of scientific knowledge in his posts. That must be why he supports Bush so much, since Bush's administration does not believe in science.

[ElwoodCuse]

You're a moron to believe this a good thing. We could save far more oil by tightening MPG requirements and other conservation measures than we could ever get out of ANWR.

[alonzomourning23]

PAD shows a profound lack of scientific knowledge in his posts.

I realized that a long time ago, but this time his entire argument is faulty due to it (at least in terms of environment).

[ZarathosNY]

I also read somewhere that it will also cost more to refine the oil that is there than oil from the middle east because the sulpher content in Alaskan oil is much higher.

[coffman]

You're a moron to believe this a good thing. We could save far more oil by tightening MPG requirements and other conservation measures than we could ever get out of ANWR.

You are 100% correct! It has been determined that increasing cars to 40 mpg and trucks to 30 mpg would save more oil than what the U.S. currently imports from the Middle East. This could easily be done without compromising safety or performance. As a matter of fact, the Japanese have been doing this for several years with some of their models. Bush is jepardizing our national security by not seeking alternative energy sources.

[gaelan]

I wonder if politicians would get their heads out of MLB's ass looking for steroid use, maybe they would have paid more attention to important crap like this.

Wait...my Humvee just ran out of gas.

[E-Z-B]

Didn't Bush also ease the mpg requirement that was going to take affect right when he came into office? Cripes, you don't need a freakin' Vulcan to tell you the lack of logic with the Republican party.

So PAD will be jumping for joy when that gasoline reaches the pumps in 2015. Now, what are we going to do between 2005 and 2014? And what about 2016 and beyond?

[Ikohn4ever]

what about the crazy idea of making cars more gas efficient, wait never mind thats just crazy talk.

[Gothic Walrus]

what about the crazy idea of making cars more gas efficient, wait never mind thats just crazy talk.

The real issue is getting them out there. Hybrids exist, but they're still somewhat expensive and there's the issue of the millions and millions of non-hybrid cars on the roads.

I fail to see how this is a good thing. Destroying the environment so we can continue to pollute it defies all logic I can think of.

[Gothic Walrus]

We have to be the only nation on Earth with a group of people dumb enough to think caribou were more important than energy for growth.

When the world is as overpopulated as it is now, growth isn't a good thing.

[bmulligan]

We have to be the only nation on Earth with a group of people dumb enough to think caribou were more important than energy for growth.

When the world is as overpopulated as it is now, growth isn't a good thing.

So, I'm curious, what IS a good population quota for the world in your opinion ?

[Stryffe2004]

Do you people that support drilling really think the savings will be passed to the consumer? It would be great if it was, but somehow, I suspect the oil companies will have research and constuction and bribes. err. . incentive money to pay back.

[elprincipe]

Do you people that support drilling really think the savings will be passed to the consumer? It would be great if it was, but somehow, I suspect the oil companies will have research and constuction and bribes. err. . incentive money to pay back.

Anyone who thinks ANWR drilling is about lowering oil prices doesn't know much. OPEC countries basically control prices because they can and do control how much they produce to manipulate price. If Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members produced as much as they could, gas would be much cheaper. It's about lessening our dependence on foreign oil.

I think this is a good thing on the whole. In the short run, while we search for new energy technologies, we're going to use fossil fuels. That is just the reality. To intimate, as John Kerry did during the presidential campaign, that you can somehow just snap your fingers and create new energy sources out of the blue if just naive. The focus should be in two areas: exploration in places like ANWR (yes, a tiny portion of a desolate area) and major efforts in conservation.

Americans are too wasteful with our energy and we need real efforts at conservation. We need energy efficient light bulbs, cars that get more MPG (most urgently, eliminate the tax subsidy for SUVs!) and other such measures. Also companies and government need to fund research. I feel this area clearly falls under promoting the common welfare of everyone, at least a lot more so than plenty of other wasteful pork barrel spending.

In any case, ANWR drilling is a nod to reality and reasonableness, but it doesn't solve the problem, only gives us a little more breathing space.

[E-Z-B]

Do you people that support drilling really think the savings will be passed to the consumer? It would be great if it was, but somehow, I suspect the oil companies will have research and constuction and bribes. err. . incentive money to pay back.

Anyone who thinks ANWR drilling is about lowering oil prices doesn't know much. OPEC countries basically control prices because they can and do control how much they produce to manipulate price. If Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members produced as much as they could, gas would be much cheaper. It's about lessening our dependence on foreign oil.

I think this is a good thing on the whole. In the short run, while we search for new energy technologies, we're going to use fossil fuels. That is just the reality. To intimate, as John Kerry did during the presidential campaign, that you can somehow just snap your fingers and create new energy sources out of the blue if just naive. The focus should be in two areas: exploration in places like ANWR (yes, a tiny portion of a desolate area) and major efforts in conservation.

Americans are too wasteful with our energy and we need real efforts at conservation. We need energy efficient light bulbs, cars that get more MPG (most urgently, eliminate the tax subsidy for SUVs!) and other such measures. Also companies and government need to fund research. I feel this area clearly falls under promoting the common welfare of everyone, at least a lot more so than plenty of other wasteful pork barrel spending.

In any case, ANWR drilling is a nod to reality and reasonableness, but it doesn't solve the problem, only gives us a little more breathing space.

Except that OPEC has already hinted before that they would cut production by whatever America produces. So, in effect, we'll still be in the mercy of OPEC.

[coffman]

Another thing to consider is that the production of oil is expected to peak between 2010-2015. After that you can expect gas shortages and high prices. ANWR won't save us from that. To avoid an economic catastrophe in the United States, we need to start putting as many fuel efficient vehicles on the road as possible.

[elprincipe]

Do you people that support drilling really think the savings will be passed to the consumer? It would be great if it was, but somehow, I suspect the oil companies will have research and constuction and bribes. err. . incentive money to pay back.

Anyone who thinks ANWR drilling is about lowering oil prices doesn't know much. OPEC countries basically control prices because they can and do control how much they produce to manipulate price. If Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members produced as much as they could, gas would be much cheaper. It's about lessening our dependence on foreign oil.

I think this is a good thing on the whole. In the short run, while we search for new energy technologies, we're going to use fossil fuels. That is just the reality. To intimate, as John Kerry did during the presidential campaign, that you can somehow just snap your fingers and create new energy sources out of the blue if just naive. The focus should be in two areas: exploration in places like ANWR (yes, a tiny portion of a desolate area) and major efforts in conservation.

Americans are too wasteful with our energy and we need real efforts at conservation. We need energy efficient light bulbs, cars that get more MPG (most urgently, eliminate the tax subsidy for SUVs!) and other such measures. Also companies and government need to fund research. I feel this area clearly falls under promoting the common welfare of everyone, at least a lot more so than plenty of other wasteful pork barrel spending.

In any case, ANWR drilling is a nod to reality and reasonableness, but it doesn't solve the problem, only gives us a little more breathing space.

Except that OPEC has already hinted before that they would cut production by whatever America produces. So, in effect, we'll still be in the mercy of OPEC.

I don't think anyone is going to claim that ANWR drilling will eliminate any influence over the oil market OPEC has, but it can reduce it. I'm not sure of the numbers, but I think we use like 7 or 8 million barrels of oil a day, and ANWR could produce 1 million barrels a day. Even if OPEC reduced production by that much, that means that we control 1/7 more of our fuel supplies. So yes they still have influence, but not as much. ANWR drilling is common sense, but people who think that fixes everything are deluding themselves.

[ElwoodCuse]

but I think we use like 7 or 8 million barrels of oil a day, and ANWR could produce 1 million barrels a day.

Then why don't we try to lower the first number instead of increasing the second number?

[elprincipe]

but I think we use like 7 or 8 million barrels of oil a day, and ANWR could produce 1 million barrels a day.

Then why don't we try to lower the first number instead of increasing the second number?

What I'm saying is that we have to do both. Unless you're retarded, obviously you know that we are going to be using oil, and a lot of it, at least in the near future. We should definitely be going all out to improve conservation, but for the time being it's also important to have the energy sources that power our economy and way of life.

[mykevermin]

I'm tickled pink with PAD, who starts new threads and disappears quickly.

When it comes to the conservation argument and the tightening of MPG restrictions argument, there exists no logical response.

Furthermore, who ever pointed out the lifespan of Alaskan oil has a brilliant point, yet nobody has really touched on it further. If the number he cited as coming out of ANWR is a high estimate. Imagine if it is significantly less than that?

myke.
...I thought Republicans were hating on Specter at the moment anyway, or at least that Dr. James Dobson was threatening to kick his fucking ass (speaking in hyperbole, of course - good christians don't say "fucking").

[elprincipe]

Furthermore, who ever pointed out the lifespan of Alaskan oil has a brilliant point, yet nobody has really touched on it further. If the number he cited as coming out of ANWR is a high estimate. Imagine if it is significantly less than that?

The lifespan of the oil from there being short is propaganda. People cite numbers like if we only used oil from ANWR it would last so many days. Obviously that is not going to be the case, but it makes for more "damning" statistics, so some people who are against drilling use them.

As for the estimates, obviously no one really knows. What we know is that there are pretty much at least 5 billion barrels under this area, perhaps 10 billion. It's worth it even if it's only 5 billion, but also remember techniques for recovering oil are improving all the time and we're able to get more and more out of the ground as technology advances.

[CaseyRyback]

The lifespan of the oil from there being short is propaganda. People cite numbers like if we only used oil from ANWR it would last so many days. Obviously that is not going to be the case, but it makes for more "damning" statistics, so some people who are against drilling use them.

As for the estimates, obviously no one really knows. What we know is that there are pretty much at least 5 billion barrels under this area, perhaps 10 billion. It's worth it even if it's only 5 billion, but also remember techniques for recovering oil are improving all the time and we're able to get more and more out of the ground as technology advances.

if technology starts to get that good, the middle eastern countries will start buying it up, because they know that OPEC would be $$$$ed if Russia can start getting all its oil from Siberia

[coffman]

The lifespan of the oil from there being short is propaganda. People cite numbers like if we only used oil from ANWR it would last so many days. Obviously that is not going to be the case, but it makes for more "damning" statistics, so some people who are against drilling use them.

As for the estimates, obviously no one really knows. What we know is that there are pretty much at least 5 billion barrels under this area, perhaps 10 billion. It's worth it even if it's only 5 billion, but also remember techniques for recovering oil are improving all the time and we're able to get more and more out of the ground as technology advances.

The "lifespan" number is not propaganda, it is a real number put out by the U.S. Geological Survey.

[mykevermin]

The lifespan of the oil from there being short is propaganda. People cite numbers like if we only used oil from ANWR it would last so many days. Obviously that is not going to be the case, but it makes for more "damning" statistics, so some people who are against drilling use them.

As for the estimates, obviously no one really knows. What we know is that there are pretty much at least 5 billion barrels under this area, perhaps 10 billion. It's worth it even if it's only 5 billion, but also remember techniques for recovering oil are improving all the time and we're able to get more and more out of the ground as technology advances.

It's worth is an opinion; though I couldn't give you (to be honest) an approximate number at which it would be worth it, to me.

I often wonder if our sense of time is skewed; for a planet and a people that's been around for as long as it has, we rarely look far off into the future (5 years is a $$$$ing eternity). Why ruin something if it will only provide supplemental oil for a short time-span?

myke.
...I still think there ought to be a variable cost of gas relative to the approximate MPG of the car you are filling up. Make the $$$$ing selifsh pigs pay for their ways.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

The funny thing mykevermin is your proposal to make the cost of gas relative to the MPG of your car is working like this. There have been proposals on the west coast, testing being done in Oregon, where you would be taxed based on how many miles you drive. The concern is if people buy high mileage/hybrid cars they won't be buying as much gas, hence, not enough gas tax being paid. So you pull into a gas station, the car tells the pump how much you've driven between fill ups and you pay accordingly.

State governments obviously are not going to want people to buy high mileage cars if it means tax revenue decreases. So while your proposal is sound, and I really don't have a problem with consumption taxes, governments of all stripes are going to want mileage taxes if we buy enough vehicles where gas tax revenue decreases or remains flat.

[mykevermin]

The funny thing mykevermin is your proposal to make the cost of gas relative to the MPG of your car is working like this. There have been proposals on the west coast, testing being done in Oregon, where you would be taxed based on how many miles you drive. The concern is if people buy high mileage/hybrid cars they won't be buying as much gas, hence, not enough gas tax being paid. So you pull into a gas station, the car tells the pump how much you've driven between fill ups and you pay accordingly.

State governments obviously are not going to want people to buy high mileage cars if it means tax revenue decreases. So while your proposal is sound, and I really don't have a problem with consumption taxes, governments of all stripes are going to want mileage taxes if we buy enough vehicles where gas tax revenue decreases or remains flat.

Miles driven and MPG are two separate entities, though. States propose tobacco taxes constantly; the problem with tobacco taxes is that (1) the state knows they are going to gain monetarily from them, yet (2) the state frames the proposition of the tax under the guise of altruistic deterrence (i.e., the tax is intended to reduce the number of tobacco users by making the direct cost of buying cigarettes too much for people).

With that in mind, proposing a tax that disproportionately weighs on those who drive autos with low-MPG is feasible; two inherent problems with it that I see though (I'm allowed to do that with my own arguments, right?): (1) how to pass something like this with the realization of the blurring line between the oil lobby and our government - although a problem, if tobacco can be as taxed as it is knowing the involvement of the tobacco lobby, I can be assured that, while unlikely, it isn't impossible to implement. (2) How to exclude autos that are (to some degree) necessarily low-MPG. I intend to make certain that those people who purchase and use autos as a luxury pay more; this, then, is to exclude semis or other large transport vehicles (most of which run on diesel, and may make it a moot point).

myke.

[dtcarson]

And with the "miles driven" and 'per gallon' gas tax, the govt gets the best of *both* worlds! Soak the evil SUV drivers, and, well, soak the people who drive a lot in their hybrids. It's not about doing the 'best thing', it's about sucking tax dollars with government.

Virtually *everybody* purchases and uses autos 'as a luxury' at least at times. Your class envy is showing.

And the best thing for the environment, would be for us to hit 3, 4, 5 dollar/gallon gas. A lot of people talk the talk, but when it comes down to money, that's when they walk the walk. If gas hit 4-5 bucks a gallon consistently, I'd bet you my car you'd see more interest in 'higher fuel efficiency' and 'alternate sources of fuel' from the best, most powerful source--the consumer. Companies would react to that, thus proving another important point--money talks.

If we can replace even 5% of our oil dependence, and provide American jobs, while not causing undue impact on the environment, I'm all for it. Just like I'm all for social security privatization, since most people dont seem to realize two things: the currently suggested plan is *optional*, and the stock market has *always* outperformed the basic SS "investments" over the long term.

[mykevermin]

And with the "miles driven" and 'per gallon' gas tax, the govt gets the best of *both* worlds! Soak the evil SUV drivers, and, well, soak the people who drive a lot in their hybrids. It's not about doing the 'best thing', it's about sucking tax dollars with government.

Virtually *everybody* purchases and uses autos 'as a luxury' at least at times. Your class envy is showing.

And the best thing for the environment, would be for us to hit 3, 4, 5 dollar/gallon gas. A lot of people talk the talk, but when it comes down to money, that's when they walk the walk. If gas hit 4-5 bucks a gallon consistently, I'd bet you my car you'd see more interest in 'higher fuel efficiency' and 'alternate sources of fuel' from the best, most powerful source--the consumer. Companies would react to that, thus proving another important point--money talks.

If we can replace even 5% of our oil dependence, and provide American jobs, while not causing undue impact on the environment, I'm all for it. Just like I'm all for social security privatization, since most people dont seem to realize two things: the currently suggested plan is *optional*, and the stock market has *always* outperformed the basic SS "investments" over the long term.

Class envy? Meh, I grew up fairly upper middle class. Class bias? Sure, that's what you get for studying social stratification and inequality. Envy? Nyet.

I would wait to tax hybrids until they become more widely accepted; at the moment, they're expensive enough that people are buying them motivated by environmental consciousness, not cash savings. Once they become a relative standard, and not a "boutique item," for lack of a better phrase, then perhaps you can tax them.

Continuing the tobacco analogy, studies show (I'll get them if you want, but am lacking at the moment) that, despite increases in price per pack, tobacco usage is declining among one group: teenagers. Granted, that's the key demographic (get them before they start), but even the downward trend in that area is pretty minimal. Consumer demand may perpetuate better fuel efficiency, but it's not as if fuel availability and dependence on foreign oil are new subjects; hell, it was in vogue about the time I was conceived ('78). I'm not yet convinced that consumers will realize that better fuel efficiency is an important topic.

myke.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

You can't combine/hybrid miles driven and MPG/per gallon taxes. You're trying to get the best of both methods of taxation, you can't have that. You have to do one or the other. You can't tell people that don't have hybrids that hybrid drivers are paying less for gas because they get better mileage. That is class warfare and regressive taxation.

If I buy a base model Honda Accord for $16,000 but the hybrid is $28,000 I'm getting reamed for not being able to afford the hybrid. So that's fair? The rich and altruistic hybrid drivers should get a benefit? For what? Being rich?

What about people that have never, ever, purchased a new car in their lifetimes? You know, "working families"? They're going to get screwed until hybrids start appearing on the used car market? What if it's discovered that hybrid versions of popular models have a 5-7 year lifespan while the gasoline models have a 10 year or more lifespan? We don't know how these cars are going to hold up over time and regular driving yet in real world conditions. You're going to say it's fair for these families to pay increased prices for their cars that won't last as long as proven technology?

You analogy to tobacco taxation is also moot. Tobacco taxes were indeed passed to pay for health care, not to decrease the amount of people smoking. People quitting because of the price is forcing many state governments to scramble for additional revenue.

This is the best example of flawed liberal taxation strategy; 1,000,000 smokers buying 250 packs of cigarettes per smoker a year taxed $2 a pack will net $500,000,000. Now, when cigarettes hit $4.50-5.00 when 8 years ago they could be purchased for $1.50 causes the same thing that gasoline hitting $4-5 a gallon would, altered consumer behavior. That 1,000,000 smoker estimate for your state falls to 800,000 or 700,000 and that tax revenue that was projected at $500,000,000 comes in at $350,000,000-400,000,000. Now, do you think any legislature in the nation didn't spend that half billion in anticipation that people wouldn't quit or that their tax increases would have an effect on the market?

So what happens next? They need to tax something else to make up for anticipated revenues not showing up. It's a downward spiral. I'm a perfect example of that. I used to buy cheap cartons of Marlboro Light cigarettes for $13 in 1998. Now the same carton costs $40. What did I do? Quit two years ago. Now I'll live longer, have better health, etc but the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has to find another place to get the $500 or more in cigarette taxes I no longer provide.

[mykevermin]

You can't combine/hybrid miles driven and MPG/per gallon taxes. You're trying to get the best of both methods of taxation, you can't have that. You have to do one or the other. You can't tell people that don't have hybrids that hybrid drivers are paying less for gas because they get better mileage. That is class warfare and regressive taxation.

If I buy a base model Honda Accord for $16,000 but the hybrid is $28,000 I'm getting reamed for not being able to afford the hybrid. So that's fair? The rich and altruistic hybrid drivers should get a benefit? For what? Being rich?

What about people that have never, ever, purchased a new car in their lifetimes? You know, "working families"? They're going to get screwed until hybrids start appearing on the used car market? What if it's discovered that hybrid versions of popular models have a 5-7 year lifespan while the gasoline models have a 10 year or more lifespan? We don't know how these cars are going to hold up over time and regular driving yet in real world conditions. You're going to say it's fair for these families to pay increased prices for their cars that won't last as long as proven technology?

You analogy to tobacco taxation is also moot. Tobacco taxes were indeed passed to pay for health care, not to decrease the amount of people smoking. People quitting because of the price is forcing many state governments to scramble for additional revenue.

This is the best example of flawed liberal taxation strategy; 1,000,000 smokers buying 250 packs of cigarettes per smoker a year taxed $2 a pack will net $500,000,000. Now, when cigarettes hit $4.50-5.00 when 8 years ago they could be purchased for $1.50 causes the same thing that gasoline hitting $4-5 a gallon would, altered consumer behavior. That 1,000,000 smoker estimate for your state falls to 800,000 or 700,000 and that tax revenue that was projected at $500,000,000 comes in at $350,000,000-400,000,000. Now, do you think any legislature in the nation didn't spend that half billion in anticipation that people wouldn't quit or that their tax increases would have an effect on the market?

So what happens next? They need to tax something else to make up for anticipated revenues not showing up. It's a downward spiral. I'm a perfect example of that. I used to buy cheap cartons of Marlboro Light cigarettes for $13 in 1998. Now the same carton costs $40. What did I do? Quit two years ago. Now I'll live longer, have better health, etc but the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has to find another place to get the $500 or more in cigarette taxes I no longer provide.

A flawed liberal taxation strategy is one that does not exist permanently? Please; as the economy grows and changes, society grows and changes (though that's not to say society is always the causal result of the economy, of course). As changes and growth occur, similar growth and changes occur to the tax structure. What's new or revolutionary about that (and, for the matter, what's liberal about that?) So, what are they taxing other than cigarettes to make up for this? Consumer balked at paying a surplus tax on fast food; I say why the $$$$ not? What is covering the difference from the initial tobacco tax revenue and today's revenue?

The difference for an Accord hybrid is $3,400 over a similarly modeled gasoline Accord. $12,000? Where did that figure come from? Hell, where can I get a brand new $16,000 Accord?

And you can tell people that they will get taxed more if they drive cars with lower MPGs. Damn skippy you can. Given that oil is a finitie resource (whether it lasts 100 more years or 100,000 more, it's indisputibly finite), those who unecessarily use more ought to pay more for overuse of an unrenewable resource. Why can't you? Class warfare? Sorry, PAD, but that phrase is empty. What is the argument: "You are punishing people for being successful." Is that it? A often-ignored corollary of that argument is this: "If you aren't making successful people pay a fair share, you're punishing those who are not successful." In short, if you want to champion your working families that only buy used cars, don't also make the argument that it is their responsibility to cover up the taxes not being paid by the wealthy, because it's "class warfare."

Hell, how is it class warfare if you're trying to tell me that working-class people also drive low-MPG cars? Is it class warfare, then, if I suggest that they file for a annual tax credit if they are under the median income level/poverty line (TBD, if you will) in order to reduce their federal taxes based on their MPG tax overpayment, or add that to their refund?

Is that class warfare then? Perhaps it is. If you're so against paying taxes, go work 20 hours a week at a minimum wage job. Seriously.

myke.

[elprincipe]

The "lifespan" number is not propaganda, it is a real number put out by the U.S. Geological Survey.

Okay, in that case we shouldn't build any more dams or wind or solar power. I mean, all the power a solar plant produces in an entire year probably couldn't power the city of New York for one day, so why destroy a portion of the desert or somewhere to make a solar plant? That is twisting the statistics to suit propaganda purposes. If ANWR is used as planned, it's not going to run out in a few weeks, believe me.

[elprincipe]

It's worth is an opinion; though I couldn't give you (to be honest) an approximate number at which it would be worth it, to me.

I often wonder if our sense of time is skewed; for a planet and a people that's been around for as long as it has, we rarely look far off into the future (5 years is a $$$$ing eternity). Why ruin something if it will only provide supplemental oil for a short time-span?

I don't feel ANWR drilling is going to ruin very much. It's taking place on a very small area of a gigantic reserve. While I understand the need and desire for conservation, I feel this is just common sense due to a need to also take human needs into account (what a novel idea!).

[alonzomourning23]

I don't feel ANWR drilling is going to ruin very much. It's taking place on a very small area of a gigantic reserve. While I understand the need and desire for conservation, I feel this is just common sense due to a need to also take human needs into account (what a novel idea!).

But we always push "just a little further" for the sake of human needs. Look at how much we've destroyed so far pushing "just a little bit further". This isn't even like a species where you can devestate their numbers and they can, sometimes, bounce back under the right conditions. Every advance here is permanent, and in a few years they'll move onto their next target, just like they always do.

[AngellicLulu]

No, we weren't the only country that put the needs of caribou above oil... see that oil reserve crosses the border into Canada and you know what... they have that oil strictly off-limits... no drilling. The oil in ANWR is such an insignificant amount it's not even worth the time and drilling... oh, which they can't even start drilling for five years.
Also for those that say it will not efffect much of the reserve... we're talking miles of pipelines and it's upstream of a river that branches throughout ANWR.
Also by opening up ANWR you are now setting a precedent... you'll see another couple years and they'll be after the natural gas in the coral reefs off of FL using ANWR as a precedent.
Yes, I'm biased I'm an Environmental Policy major... but at least I know what the flip I'm talking about. ANWR will NOT provide as much oil as they are projecting... those are very high and rough estimates, also those numbers include the amount you'd be sucking out of Canada... and I don't think Canada will be too pleased with that.

[mykevermin]

I don't feel ANWR drilling is going to ruin very much. It's taking place on a very small area of a gigantic reserve. While I understand the need and desire for conservation, I feel this is just common sense due to a need to also take human needs into account (what a novel idea!).

The idea of human needs is interesting. Given what occurs in the third world everyday (that $5 billion Bush promised to help fight AIDS in Africa in 2002/3? Not a dime has been given); given what we ignore everyday (why we haven't tried to oust Robert Mugabe in the name of "spreading democracy" is beyond me, not to mention Sudan, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, et al.); given the human needs denied in this country in the past five years in favor of corporate profits (perhaps you could explain to me how medicaire was improved by the Bush bill, other than providing a .7 billion dollar profit to pharmaceuticals - how have the people on medicaire been helped?); given the human needs ignored (and continuing to be ignored) both in Iraq and Cuba in our prisons; given the human needs ignored consistently by this administration (Bush's 2005 budget eliminated Pell (?) grants for low-income students to attend vocational school - and these are the very students who require educational assistance more than any other student), I fail to see how supplemental oil is a "human need."

Will we eventually need it? Regrettably, you may be on to something there; until we, as a nation, learn to curb our oil consumption on more general levels (demand higher MPG from companies, demand better/cheaper hybrids, *walk more*), satiating a "need" such as this is directly rewarding United States citizens for consuming resources without regard.

myke.

[camoor]

I don't feel ANWR drilling is going to ruin very much. It's taking place on a very small area of a gigantic reserve. While I understand the need and desire for conservation, I feel this is just common sense due to a need to also take human needs into account (what a novel idea!).

Human need, or corporate greed?

[gamefreak]

http://www.dailycampus.com/news/2005/02/16/Commentary/Alaskan.Drilling.Not.So.Bad-866062.shtml
As far as the impact drilling will have on the local animal population, it is necessary to first examine the effects other Alaskan pipelines have had on the animal life. At the start of the drilling at Purdue Bay the caribou population consisted of 3,000 animals. At the end of the development the population had almost doubled, reaching 5,500 and present-day accounts of the area show that the caribou population has skyrocketed to well over 20,000 animals.

Guess we gotta stop the drilling, we nature-hating Republicans want all the animals to die and this obviously isn't the way to go about doing it...

[alonzomourning23]

http://www.dailycampus.com/news/2005/02/16/Commentary/Alaskan.Drilling.Not.So.Bad-866062.shtml


Guess we gotta stop the drilling, we nature-hating Republicans want all the animals to die and this obviously isn't the way to go about doing it...

Sounds good, but it doesn't really say much. What are the effects on other mammals/birds/fish in the area? Did its predator take a hit? Was this a fluke, or is it normal for animals to flourish when drilling starts? So many questions, so little answers provided.

Suburbs result in booming squirrel, blue jay etc. populations, kill off wolves and other predators and the deer population explodes, cities result in booming rat and pidgeon populations, looking at just one or two animals is not a good indicator.

Though I find that comment to just be taking advantage of the article, most people who want the drilling don't really care whether it harms the wildlife or not. To most if it doesn't that's great, if it does that's fine to.

[mykevermin]

I can't find any information on Purdue Bay as a location in Alaska; the only thing that I google up is the same item posted above. Any help?

Something must have migrated away or died in order to the caribou population to increase like that; the population wouldn't spontaneously bloom like that, and the pipelines sure as shit aren't a causal factor. So, what is the article not telling us?

myke.

[elprincipe]

But we always push "just a little further" for the sake of human needs. Look at how much we've destroyed so far pushing "just a little bit further". This isn't even like a species where you can devestate their numbers and they can, sometimes, bounce back under the right conditions. Every advance here is permanent, and in a few years they'll move onto their next target, just like they always do.

Ah, the slippery slope argument. I don't doubt there will be more areas people want opened up for oil/gas/coal exploration. Why? Because it's necessary at this point in time for our economy.

I should also note that Alaskans and locals overwhelmingly want this drilling to happen, just like the people of Southern Utah really wanted coal development (90%+ in favor according to polls) when Clinton decided that they shouldn't have any say over their own future. People in these areas want jobs and see this kind of development as the way to get them. Regrettably, not everyone can be a movie star in Hollywood or a stock broker on Wall Street. Rural areas have people who want to make a living for themselves as well.

Again, balance is the key here. Just getting more oil only postpones the eventual reckoning when it runs dry. However, there is really no other option, other than returning to pre-Industrial Age times, other than a rather large amount of fossil fuels to power our country at this time, unless you want to go the French route and use nuclear power instead. We're banking on technology to wean us off fossil fuels and God help us if that doesn't pan out.

[elprincipe]

The idea of human needs is interesting. Given what occurs in the third world everyday (that $5 billion Bush promised to help fight AIDS in Africa in 2002/3? Not a dime has been given); given what we ignore everyday (why we haven't tried to oust Robert Mugabe in the name of "spreading democracy" is beyond me, not to mention Sudan, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, et al.); given the human needs denied in this country in the past five years in favor of corporate profits (perhaps you could explain to me how medicaire was improved by the Bush bill, other than providing a .7 billion dollar profit to pharmaceuticals - how have the people on medicaire been helped?); given the human needs ignored (and continuing to be ignored) both in Iraq and Cuba in our prisons; given the human needs ignored consistently by this administration (Bush's 2005 budget eliminated Pell (?) grants for low-income students to attend vocational school - and these are the very students who require educational assistance more than any other student), I fail to see how supplemental oil is a "human need."

Interesting post, since everything you mentioned (our military, modern medicine, prisons, schools) needs energy to happen, and we get energy from oil among other sources. I'm also rather interested to know what you would have happen in Sudan/Syria/Iran/N.Korea/Saudi Arabia/etc, unless you mean something like what happened in Iraq, yet this gets us off the subject. I guess I should just say hey, I'm not arguing Bush/Republican policies, just ANWR drilling.

It's strange to me how people can live the way they do, using cars and heating and air conditioning and electricity to play video games and all, and yet are against actually getting the energy sources to make such things work. The reality is that an industrial economy cannot at this point in time be run off renewable energy alone, thus we have to find fossil fuels or uranium. This seems the best way to get a lot of oil while harming a miniscule portion of a mostly desolate environment. Thus, common sense says do it.

[elprincipe]

Human need, or corporate greed?

All corporations are greedy. That is their function, to make money. That's the way capitalism works. If you don't like it, don't buy their products.

And we do need it. As I explained in previous posts, our modern economy needs energy sources to function. Seeing as this is a discussion using the Internet, I don't doubt that you use your share of energy, too. It's hypocritical to use energy and then slam those who try and supply it to you as being "greedy." If you can name a better place to get energy at this point in time than ANWR, I'm sure plenty of us would be interested to hear it.

[alonzomourning23]

Ah, the slippery slope argument. I don't doubt there will be more areas people want opened up for oil/gas/coal exploration. Why? Because it's necessary at this point in time for our economy.

I should also note that Alaskans and locals overwhelmingly want this drilling to happen, just like the people of Southern Utah really wanted coal development (90%+ in favor according to polls) when Clinton decided that they shouldn't have any say over their own future. People in these areas want jobs and see this kind of development as the way to get them. Regrettably, not everyone can be a movie star in Hollywood or a stock broker on Wall Street. Rural areas have people who want to make a living for themselves as well.

Again, balance is the key here. Just getting more oil only postpones the eventual reckoning when it runs dry. However, there is really no other option, other than returning to pre-Industrial Age times, other than a rather large amount of fossil fuels to power our country at this time, unless you want to go the French route and use nuclear power instead. We're banking on technology to wean us off fossil fuels and God help us if that doesn't pan out.

Slippery slope technically, but it's based on what has already happened (though I don't understand why you complain about it being a slippery slope, then say you don't doubt it is). Slippery slope, as it's usually used, assumes things that haven't happened yet (ie. they're going to legalize pedophelia), I'm not doing that here. They always DO move on to the next place, that's true all over the world.

But you have to understand my view, you don't seem to. We're not talking about the nation starving to death, I'm never going to agree with harming the environment for some relatively minor economic gain. I don't really care if they want it or not, these areas are set aside for wildlife, that's the whole point, so humans can't exploit it. There are too few of these as it is. There are some things that should not be democratic, minority rights and wildlife conservation being among them. Being set aside for wildlife, they are not for human exploitation. I'm not going to permanently sacrifice nature and wildlife for some temporary economic benefit. There's always a benefit to the economy, doesn't mean the benefit outweighs the cost. At best (most likely won't even work like this) it reduces some dependency on foreign oil, not something I care about when considering what they had to do to do that. We keep destroying the environment as it is, why the hell would I want to speed that up?

It is hypocritical that I use all this energy (computer and such), and I drive a hell of a lot more than I need to (drove 120+ miles to another city today because I was bored). But, at the same time, I support raising gas prices to 4 or 5 a gallon to force people to conserve more gas. It is hypocritical in the sense I do the very things that make this worse, but at the same time I support practically everything to make it harder on me to continue to do that. If you gave me a choice to get rid of these things altogether I'd do so, but I'm essentially addicted to technology. The best I can muster is practically insignificant things, I buy recycled products when I can, have a bunch of places and companies I won't buy from due to various practices (oddly nike isn't on there), and don't eat most meat. Dairy is probably too woven into my diet for me to stop eating any animal product, though vegetarian may be within reach, down to shrimp, salmon, as well as crab and oyster in products such as soup, but not just plain or resembling what they look like whole, most other meat has come to disgust me.

If all this crashed due to lack of energy (long before everything vanished they'd switch what's left to necessary serives, such as hospitals), I'd be dealing more with withdrawal symptoms than tears. Let's put everything we have into developing newer, clean sources, and I think I'm to the point where I'd prefer nuclear energy over this, we're getting nowhere and we're destroying way too much in the process.

[elprincipe]

Slippery slope technically, but it's based on what has already happened (though I don't understand why you complain about it being a slippery slope, then say you don't doubt it is). Slippery slope, as it's usually used, assumes things that haven't happened yet (ie. they're going to legalize pedophelia), I'm not doing that here. They always DO move on to the next place, that's true all over the world.

But you have to understand my view, you don't seem to. We're not talking about the nation starving to death, I'm never going to agree with harming the environment for some relatively minor economic gain. I don't really care if they want it or not, these areas are set aside for wildlife, that's the whole point, so humans can't exploit it. There are too few of these as it is. There are some things that should not be democratic, minority rights and wildlife conservation being among them. Being set aside for wildlife, they are not for human exploitation. I'm not going to permanently sacrifice nature and wildlife for some temporary economic benefit. There's always a benefit to the economy, doesn't mean the benefit outweighs the cost. At best (most likely won't even work like this) it reduces some dependency on foreign oil, not something I care about when considering what they had to do to do that. We keep destroying the environment as it is, why the hell would I want to speed that up?

I guess a lot depends on how much you see this as harming the environment within ANWR. I'm pretty well convinced that it's minimal space/harm to an environment so vast and sparse that I hardly see what the hubub is about. OTOH, you see it as major damage to wildlife in the area.

[alonzomourning23]

That's true, but I also think we have different opinions of what an acceptable amount of harm is.

[coffman]

Interesting post, since everything you mentioned (our military, modern medicine, prisons, schools) needs energy to happen, and we get energy from oil among other sources. I'm also rather interested to know what you would have happen in Sudan/Syria/Iran/N.Korea/Saudi Arabia/etc, unless you mean something like what happened in Iraq, yet this gets us off the subject. I guess I should just say hey, I'm not arguing Bush/Republican policies, just ANWR drilling.

It's strange to me how people can live the way they do, using cars and heating and air conditioning and electricity to play video games and all, and yet are against actually getting the energy sources to make such things work. The reality is that an industrial economy cannot at this point in time be run off renewable energy alone, thus we have to find fossil fuels or uranium. This seems the best way to get a lot of oil while harming a miniscule portion of a mostly desolate environment. Thus, common sense says do it.

We could be doing much more with renewable energy, but the energy sector (nuclear and fossil fuel) is highly subsidized by our tax dollars. Renewable energy, on the other hand, receives little in the way of subsidies. If the same degree of subsidies were given to the renewable energy companies, they would be able to compete with fossil fuels in terms of pricing. This would encourage growth in the renewable energy field. But of course the Bush administration has cut funding into renewable energy sources and will not give those companies any tax money, nor will it take away current subsidies from the nuclear and fossil fuel companies. Until there is a level playing field renewable energy will sit on the sidelines. Of course, yesterday I read that gas prices are expected to hit at least $3.00 per gallon this summer and could go as high as $4.00 per gallon, so maybe we'll see the Bush administration cave in on renewable energy.

[dtcarson]

And subsidies are about the least efficient way of fomenting change, since very rarely does the government ever turn off the money spigot.
If the energy industries saw a viable, profitable market for renewable resources of any sort, they would be spending millions of their own money creating alternatives--because then they could benefit billions in profit. Governmentally subsidizing that research would be a sure way to slow down any progress, becaus once the project is done, the guaranteed funds would turn off.
The best way to have a 'level playing field' is get the government *out* of it, and open the markets up to what consumers want.
And we sure do talk a lot about evil gas prices, when in actuality transportation only accounts for about 60% of our oil usage, and only about 50% of that is 'personal' transportation--the rest is housing, heating, factories, trucks transporting goods, etc. Gas is certainly the most obvious, but it's not the largest component of that.

[mykevermin]

Governmentally subsidizing that research would be a sure way to slow down any progress, becaus once the project is done, the guaranteed funds would turn off.

Huh?

[dtcarson]

The people conducting the research, getting the subsidies, would not be motivated to find any results, because at that point their guaranteed income would stop. Bird in the hand and all that. It's actually a demotivator. In private industry, while they do spend money in R&D, they want to get a good result as quickly as possible so they can stop spending R&D and start making profit. But if the money is someone else's [the taxpayers] handed to you by someone who has no real vested interest in your project, why would you turn that money source off?

[alonzomourning23]

The people conducting the research, getting the subsidies, would not be motivated to find any results, because at that point their guaranteed income would stop. Bird in the hand and all that. It's actually a demotivator. In private industry, while they do spend money in R&D, they want to get a good result as quickly as possible so they can stop spending R&D and start making profit. But if the money is someone else's [the taxpayers] handed to you by someone who has no real vested interest in your project, why would you turn that money source off?

Show me evidence that pulling government money from research actually benefits that research. Private industry wants results, that's true. But if there isn't much to be made, or the payoff isn't that great or uncertain, they're not going to put much, if any, money into it.

[mykevermin]

The people conducting the research, getting the subsidies, would not be motivated to find any results, because at that point their guaranteed income would stop. Bird in the hand and all that. It's actually a demotivator. In private industry, while they do spend money in R&D, they want to get a good result as quickly as possible so they can stop spending R&D and start making profit. But if the money is someone else's [the taxpayers] handed to you by someone who has no real vested interest in your project, why would you turn that money source off?

Oh, gotcha. I've heard this argument before, and while it makes sense, I'm not sure I believe it. I've not seen any evidence that this is true.

You are more than welcome, of course, to show me some.

myke.

[Drocket]

The people conducting the research, getting the subsidies, would not be motivated to find any results, because at that point their guaranteed income would stop. Bird in the hand and all that. It's actually a demotivator. In private industry, while they do spend money in R&D, they want to get a good result as quickly as possible so they can stop spending R&D and start making profit. But if the money is someone else's [the taxpayers] handed to you by someone who has no real vested interest in your project, why would you turn that money source off?
In private industry, the people in R&D are essentially always solely R&D. You don't do R&D for a couple months, then go work on the assembly line. If a company decides it needs to spend less on R&D, the former R&D people are now unemployed.

In other words, your theory is nonsense.

[elprincipe]

We could be doing much more with renewable energy, but the energy sector (nuclear and fossil fuel) is highly subsidized by our tax dollars. Renewable energy, on the other hand, receives little in the way of subsidies. If the same degree of subsidies were given to the renewable energy companies, they would be able to compete with fossil fuels in terms of pricing. This would encourage growth in the renewable energy field. But of course the Bush administration has cut funding into renewable energy sources and will not give those companies any tax money, nor will it take away current subsidies from the nuclear and fossil fuel companies. Until there is a level playing field renewable energy will sit on the sidelines. Of course, yesterday I read that gas prices are expected to hit at least $3.00 per gallon this summer and could go as high as $4.00 per gallon, so maybe we'll see the Bush administration cave in on renewable energy.

Well, I freely admit I don't know much about energy subsidies. I'm all for a level playing field, with the government involved only to push on things that would benefit all of us, like the development of renewable energy resources. I feel sometimes the government has to kick-start R&D in an area before the private sector realizes it could be good business, but generally I'd like government out of any subsides. Any links to good info on these subsides?