While Dick Cheney's busy cheerleading for increased domestic drilling from the White House, House Republicans have been cooking up yet another bill to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling.
The bill, which they're calling the "American Energy Independence and Price Reduction Act," would "direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish and implement a competitive oil and gas leasing program that will result in an environmentally sound program for the exploration, development, and production of the oil and gas resources of the Coastal Plain of Alaska." Half of the proceeds of any oil pulled from beneath the Refuge would go to the state of Alaska, and the other half would be transferred to an "ANWR Alternative Energy Trust Fund," which the bill also creates. According the language in the bill, the money in the fund could be used to "carry out specified provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005" -- ostensibly, improved efficiency and R&D of renewable energy sources.
Republican desire to drill in ANWR is well-trod territory, and it's resurfaced lately as a "solution" to high gas prices. But among those leading the call this time are two representatives who voted against opening ANWR in the past: Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), who's also a cosponsor of the bill, and Jim Walsh (R-N.Y.), who held a press conference yesterday to make the case for new legislation that would allow oil and natural gas production in a portion of the refuge.
"For the past four years, I voted against drilling in ANWR,"said Bartlett yesterday. "That is because America's two percent of world oil reserves are like savings in the bank earning huge interest rates. I didn't think it was wise to just withdraw and spend it unless we also required changes to conserve and invest the federal revenues from ANWR in efficiency and cleaner domestic alternative and renewable energy sources."
In fact, drilling in ANWR would have no effect on gas prices today. And the oil that drilling proponents speculate is there would bring down gas prices just four cents per gallon in 2027, according to the Energy Information Administration. The notion that drilling could be done in an environmentally sustainable way has been challenged by enviros in the region, including the Alaska Wilderness League [PDF]. But you can expect they'll be leaning hard on drilling this summer as gas prices continue to creep up.
Denmark’s Hedegaard urges G8 to push ahead on climate talks
China blasts U.S. climate bill enabling penalties on trade partners
Comments View as Flat
Zephaniah Posted 7:13 am
15 Jun 2008
gas price reasons
This is a conscious policy to fool the US public about the real reason for rising gas prices. Democratic leaders need to get on the offensive and reiterate that the reasons for the high cost of gasoline are:
gouging by fossil fuel industry and refusal of republicans to vote for windfall profits tax;
refusal of Republicans to vote for vehicl fuel efficiency regulations;
refusal of Republicans to stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry and allow clean, inexpensive alternatives of solar, geothermal, wind, etc to start giving us fuel free electricity.
Permalink
bigTom Posted 8:32 am
15 Jun 2008
No gouging.
The gouging by rapacious oil companies stuff is pure populist poppycock. I cringe whenever the Democrats resort to this. The reality is simply that we have (and are) squandering a finite resource, and now we are being forced to pay scarcity pricing for something that is in fact scarce. The blame really belongs on all the consumers who are using more than their fair share, but I can't imagine politicians will embrace this in the current environment.
Consumption has to come down significantly. We can do this by price. We could also do it via rationing. We could also reduce demand by a gas tax and dividend scheme. But, I don't think our current political/cultural environment would permit these somewhat less damaging mechanisms.
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 12:16 am
16 Jun 2008
Huh?
Now let me get this straight, opening up the OCS and the 1002 area, then using proceeds from the lease sales for alternative energy research won't make a difference in energy prices.
BUT, a windfall profits tax that seizes money from energy companies then using those funds for alternative energy research WILL make a difference?
Is that even logical?
Permalink
PurpleOzone Posted 1:59 am
16 Jun 2008
Oil Companies new Push
I was a random recipient of a poll 3 weeks ago, full of questions slanted to oil companies (across the pollster could not confirm this). Most question were designed to produce a positive answer. Even the question "would increased drilling in the U.S. help us become energy independent" was phrased so it was hard to answer no. Although I understand very well that oil is a global commodity which the U.S. cannot control.
So I was expecting a push from the usual sources, Republican legislators, Fox news, and here it is. Complete with polling results that the public agrees with them.
Permalink
PurpleOzone Posted 2:03 am
16 Jun 2008
Huh, Duh, Supply and Demand
Prices reduce when consumption goes down. Alternative energy sources, valuable for national security, reducing global warming, providing local control, and consumer pocketbook (at least in the long run) reduce demand.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:19 am
16 Jun 2008
Too much to ask?
"The gouging by rapacious oil companies stuff is pure populist poppycock."
Would it be too much to ask for removal of subsidies for big oil, coal, nuclear, and agribizz? Or would that be victimizing these wonderful "free" market institutions?
Wouldn't want to violate OPEC's corporate citizen's rights. That would be unconstitutional.
In light of these recent windfalls (in profit), maybe they could give up their corporate welfare checks. Like these "blending" subsidies.
BTW, when did multinational monopolies and state (shinese, saudi, russian) owned corporations get more rights (and government checks) than we each get?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 3:46 am
16 Jun 2008
Duh
Mary Anastasia O'Grady makes an excellent point today on why it is OK for Petrobras to drill offshore for oil but it isn't for privately owned companies to do so.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121357636070876033.html?m ...
She says that environmentalists don't seem to mind state owned profits, but they abhor private profits. The silence from Grist readers and posters over the Tupi field development is deafening. Don't Brazilian beaches deserve the same protection as California beaches?
It would seem that both the Republican and Democrat plans would provide money for alternative energy investments the only thing that differs is where the money comes from. (Oh and that the US would be following the Brazilian example to drill their way out of the problem.) Neither plan would have us reach energy independence, but adding more conventional gas should help to alleviate prices.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 4:23 am
16 Jun 2008
Socialism v. Environmentalism
Darth,
As one of the anti-environmental trolls on this site, I expect such false comments from you. No real environmentalist supports ANY oil drilling anywhere, regardless of who's doing it or who gets the profits. I have posted many criticisms of Lula and his destruction of Brazil's rainforest for his B.S. leftist reasons. Grist has not written about Tupi that I know of, otherwise you would certainly have heard from me. As an environmentalist, I oppose all destruction of or harm to natural environments, regardless of who does it.
Permalink