OregonAlex said:Is finding more oil really gonna help motivate the oil consumption industry to sticking to alternate energy. Nevermind what the drilling is going to do to Alaska. What is the continued use of oil going to do to our planet?
Anyone happen to know what the cost of a gallon of gas is in Norway? The world's third largest export of oil... I should add. I will tell you $6/gal. Most all of it is from taxes. All the taxes are going to the research and development of alternate energy. Bullshit you say?? Well Norway is also the cleanest energy nation in Europe.
This is putting your money where you mouth is. We don't have the balls to do anything like this in this country. Sin tax on alchool and cigarettes.. sure.. gas?? are you nuts?
The department of energy is taking notice. Not sure if anything will happen out of it.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/norenv.html
Alex, seems to me we have a couple issues converging at this point.
Do I want cheap (in a relative sense) fuel? Absolutely. Therefore I am in favor of drilling at ANWR.
Do I want a clean state/region/country/world? Absolutely. But while I would like to see movement on hydrogen, fuel cell, battery, solar, and wind technology, I don't want to cripple our economy in the short run and I don't want $3.00 of tax added to every gallon of fuel to fund the research. But if I want things to be clean, then maybe we need to put 'waste' tax on fast food wrappers, beer cans, all the other assorted things people throw out their car windows. . . in addition to making sure factories & cars are as clean as possible with their emissions.
I have no problem with taxes added research, but I don't think we have to choke ourselves economically to achieve the goals. Simply adding 10-cents a gallon, applied nationally, to all fuels used in the US would very likely produce more research money than the $3.00+ per gallon tax that is levied in Norway.
With regards to Exxon's corporate policy, that is a private business that has had some wild profit cycles and some very bad years (relative to the size of the company) and some very good years too. I find it hard to regulate the amount of profit a company can make when we have baseball players making $10,000,000+ deals, actors making $20,000,000 for 4 to 6 months work on a movie, etc. In the scale of things, Exxon is making far less than Tiger Woods, Julia Roberts or anchorman Mike Wallace. Personally I think Exxon is taking a short term strategy, but it is likely a good one for their stockholders.
EDIT: just an update!
SENATE REJECTS ANWR, DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL
In a 56-44 vote on Wednesday, the U.S. Senate rejected a defense appropriations bill that would have opened ANWR for oil production and would have boosted 2006 Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) funding by $2 Billion. As Weekly Review goes to press, senators are weighing options for reconsideration of the appropriations bill.
Senators Lincoln Chafee (R- RI) and Michael DeWine (R-OH) were instrumental in blocking the legislation by deciding to vote with 40 Democrats. Four Democrats supported the legislation, Landrieu (D-LA), Nelson (D-NE), Akaka (D-HI), Inouye (D-HI)
Once it was clear that 60 votes could not be reached to overcome a filibuster, Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) voted "no" so that procedural options remain open. It is believed that a less costly defense bill absent ANWR will now be negotiated with the House.
LIHEAP did get a boost on Wednesday, when Vice President Cheney cast a tie breaking vote on a budget bill that trims $40 billion in federal spending over the next five years. The budget bill provides for a $1 billion increase in LIHEAP spending in 2007. This important provision clears the way for appropriators to increase LIHEAP appropriations for 2007. The bill is now headed back to the House for final action.
Last edited: