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.'"
The notion of funding alternative energy research with fossil fuel revenues has been endorsed in different forms by Republican politicians
Until the president proposes it, then it automatically becomes "socialism" and they'll oppose it.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
It is unfortunate that government is apt to pursue political solutions rather than viable practical solutions. That's the world we live in.
The premise here is that gas and oil companies should be punished, and their gains should be confiscated and given to other companies with better intentions. The real world truth is that there are no oil or gas companies anymore, and there hasn't been for the last fifteen years, at least.
No, what used to be oil companies have all become energy companies. They all invest heavily in alternative energy technologies, because they have the most to lose if anything does become viable and threatens their current revenue generators. I've spoken with several former CEO's of these former oil companies, and they were, to a person, fixated on the end of oil and the emergence of alternative energy sources. I left these conversations wondering why these CEO's were more pro-alternative than any environmentalist I had ever met.
The government confiscation of funds from these companies, and the eventual redistribution to campaign donors fronting "new" energy companies will only slow down the discovery of practical and sustainable alternative energy sources.
-- Len
I still can't believe you morons elected him. Twice.
We elected Bush twice as well. You are just now noticing the voters are morons?
Learn to love Alaska
Unless you count the oil depletion allowance as a "subsidy".
But by that definition, then every industry gets a "subsidy" in terms of depreciation and other tax breaks.
But how big is it? About $2.4B annually total for all oil companies between 2011 and 2012.
Obama spent more than that on failed alternative energy speculation in the same time period.
It's probably a bit much for the private sector to fund projects to support political strategy with planning horizons measured in decades.
With private business, particularly in the US (and increasingy in Europe) where their management tend to be infested with barely educated cookie-cutter MBA pindicks who are incapable of planning beyond the next reporting season, you just can't expect much.
Thus, if I actually cared about the West, and the sort of world we want to see for our grandkids, I would like to see a partnership of business and industry, rather than letting business to their own devices. Because you know those slimy dicks would have us enslaved by the Chinese and the Arabs if they thought they could make next quarter's sales targets.
1) bump federal tax on gas/diesel by .20 this year. .10 to go to R&D (which should also be used for oil/gas, coal, and nukes), and .1 to go to fed/state DOTs. The .1 from diesel (which is mostly interstate trucking) goes to the feds, while the .1 increase from gas goes to the state's DOT. Then next year, increase it .1 again, but all of that goes to the DOTs. Do that for the next 4 years.
2) put some of the federal DOT money into pushing CNG/LNG/electrical charging stations along the federal highways.
3) allow keystone to go through.
4) increase oil/NG drilling offshore and in various federal lands, but with an eye towards keeping the environment clean.
5) put together a COTs type fund for thorium nuclear power along with some money for the possible fusion reactor that livermore has.
6) put together a tax incentive to get coal=>methane going. That is relatively clean energy and interestingly, produces a number of elements that we need esp. U and Th.
The word is COMPROMISE.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Can't argue that government subsidies of industry have a long history of being more about cronyism than anything else, so how about we "subsidize" green energy development in a completely even-handed manner governed by the free market? By phasing out the massive subsidies and environmental protection exemptions we're handing out to fossil fuel suppliers on an ongoing basis.
As fuel prices begin to rise *every* green energy project will start to look more attractive to investors, and we can stimulate dramatic investment in the field while simultaneously reducing government expenditure. If we're worried about the chilling effect that would have on the poor and the broader economy we can repurpose those funds in terms of, say, a refundable tax credit so that most people and businesses will see no net change, but will have greater incentive to pursue energy efficiency which would provide a net increase in available funds versus the status quo.
If we're worried about undermining domestic oil production versus foreign then fuel tariffs are the obvious answer. There may be some political fallout from that, but so long as they're tied to offset the reduction in subsidies I suspect most other governments actually wouldn't have a real problem with them, though they'd no doubt make some noise to gain political capital. Heck, earmark the tariff revenue for the tax refund coffers and everyone will see an immediate benefit except the oil companies. If we're willing to spend a bit of political capital and risk setting off a trade war we could even set the tariffs high enough to offset the loss in subsidies so that the domestic oil companies benefit as well.
Seems like it could be a big win all around. Am I missing something?
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
So we're the Saudi Arabia of natural gas and coal, and have vast amounts of oil to last for decades at minimum. Why does he want to spend our money on this?
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
if you want progress, you MUST make dirty technology more expensive than green technology... that is the ONLY way, and that has not happened
it won't happen organically... that is an ignorant farce and shows a lack of understanding of how businesses think
if we don't artificially make dirty tech more expensive, then it will only happen when dirty tech becomes naturally more expensive (when oil and other resources become more scarce... hence more expensive)
the problem is if you wait for depletion to drive up the cost, it's already too late
government intervention in economics is generally a bad idea, but making pollution into a commodity may not require a lot of government intervention
in Australia we have a carbon "tax", but after about 2015 it will evolve into an emissions trading scheme, which will hand more control over to the free market without eliminating it altogether
when companies can either make or save money by going green, they will be more likely to do it
placing faith in corporate or human ethics and morals is simply foolish
humans have been, are, and will always be driven by greed and self-interest.... the key is to make going green valuable
And once again, when called on your idiocy, you move the goalposts. You literally said that every government program ever failed, yet using a network designed in a government program. It matters not what you natter on about the current budget or whether or not the private sector could have done it, your point is disproved.
And that is why you are a libertard. Plus the fact that you can't distinguish an insult from an argument.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
society that gives the power to the majority to enslave a minority
First of all, I am being extremely generous to you by saying that you are not even close to accurate with your sense of what "enslave" means.
/. does exactly the opposite of what you claim the current scenario to do - you want to enslave the majority (well over 90% of the population) to give power to the minority (less than 1% realistically). Such a switch would truly exchange fictitious slavery for actual slavery.
Second, the scenario you have been advocating for some time here on
Third, you are an idiot and a coward. You substitute your religious beliefs for an actual argument in the hopes that your fascist dream state would - completely contrary to all logic - favor, rather than abuse and enslave, you.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.