Slashdot Mirror
Obama Wants To Fund Clean Energy Research With Oil & Gas Funds
An anonymous reader writes "The Obama Administration has put forth a proposal to collect $2 billion over the next 10 years from revenues generated by oil and gas development to fund scientific research into clean energy technologies. The administration hopes the research would help 'protect American families from spikes in gas prices and allow us to run our cars and trucks on electricity or homegrown fuels.' In a speech at Argonne National Laboratory, Obama said the private sector couldn't afford such research, which puts the onus on government to keep it going. Of course, it'll still be difficult to get everyone on board: 'The notion of funding alternative energy research with fossil fuel revenues has been endorsed in different forms by Republican politicians, including Alaskan senator Lisa Murkowsi. But the president still faces an uphill battle passing any major energy law, given how politicized programs to promote clean energy have become in the wake of high-profile failures of government-backed companies.'"
Losses from Obama loans to "green" companies
Solydnra - $535 Million
Abount Solar - $400 Million
First Solar - $3 Billion
Fisker Automotive - $529 Million / Cut off after getting $193 Million of that
A123 - $123 Million
Ener1 - $118 Million
ReVolt - $5 Million
Your entire post consisted of trying to mislead and lie to people. I called your bluff and no matter how many times you say "But Bush" and "Iraq" it doesn't make the FACT that Obama stole money from taxpayers to give to campaign contributors who bankrupted their companies almost immediatly after getting federal money.
China is the future as long as they remain, ironically, more economically free than the US.
Of course, the entire idea we need government to research alternatives to ostensibly reduce oil costs is historically 180 degrees in the wrong direction.
With economic giants like China, and a lesser extent, India, coming online, capitalism is rising to the occasion quite nicely, thank you. Some of you perhaps missed the last 100 years of human history vis-a-vis government intervention in the economy.
Having said that, government can force into existence things capitalism doesn't generally buy directly, like nuclear missiles and fighter aircraft technology, and faster than it would develop without financial prompting, but, as anyone here knows, you have to keep a close eye on government waste, kickbacks, Congressional directives as where research should be done, and so on.
But in the case of oil prices, it's going nowhere as help. What help vs. giant stabilized robot ships that go down through miles of water, drill down miles, make a right turn and drill even more miles, making rigs obsolete? Or fracking, which made low-hanging apples of the "hard-to-get high-hanging apples" chicken littles screamed about?
A theory that makes counter-intuitive predictions which come true over and over and over again, through the decades, should be given high value, and those who say things which turn out false over and over again should fall into the category of extraordinary claims, as in "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
Simon's theory predicts, and if you are intellectually honest, you must consider it at least, that oil prices will drop sans intervention, and natural gas prices, and that Peak Oil will turn out to be yet another corps thrown on the heap of history. By capitalism. Minimum granularity 10 years, and ideally more, especially given unprecedented things like China coming online.
Don't rub your chin and argue. Write it down and watch as history unfolds. Again
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
4,143,077 Texans live in poverty. 1,655,085 of them are children. http://www.census.gov/
90% of them are illegal aliens.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.