Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

ANWR Drilling Royalties to Fund Renewable Energy?

July 31, 2006   |   16 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
"We have proposed the largest investment in alternative energies in the history of the United States and, most importantly, it can all be done at no expense to the taxpayer."

-- Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Tulare, CA)
16 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 16
July 31, 2006
"We are the Saudi Arabia of coal"

Sad to say with sentiments like that floating around, all we are is 'the Saudi Arabia of stupidity.'

Coal = strip mining, mountain top removal, and filthy air.

Coal is trading our twentieth century energy problem (oil), for a ninetieth century energy problem (coal).

Notice the tag line, "liquid coal is cleaner than diesel fuel." WOW really setting the bar high with that one.

"Renewable Energy Access." the key word is 'renewable.'

Oil IS the problem; not the solution.

Making us choke on oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge to get the renewable energy programs we all agree we need is cynical oil politics.
Comment
2 of 16
July 31, 2006
"Sure it's domestic but is trading one finite fuel for another that much better?"
Apparently you don't realize just how much coal this country has. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal, with estimates that it could produce all of our energy (electrical and transportation) for the next 400 years. As far as you or I or the next 20 generations are concerned, our coal is infinite.
Comment
3 of 16
July 31, 2006
At the end of the day though, how much of that fund would end up going to clean coal vs. all the other technologies. Sure it's domestic but is trading one finite fuel for another that much better?
Comment
4 of 16
August 1, 2006
Why is it that the carrot being dangled in front of the donkey? This promise of placing lease and revenue funds into a trust fund for the development of :new homegrown technologies that will fuel America in the future" just plain stinks. It is nothing more than finding a sneaky way of getting oil companies into the Artic National Wildlife Refuge.

Our government doesn't really have to kow tow to the oil companies in this way, do they? Who is running our country?

If our government really wanted to develop renewable energy, what is stopping them?

adrianakau@aol.com
Comment
5 of 16
August 2, 2006
Have any of you who have posted comments ever been to the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge?

The idea of a trust fund is foolish. It will either get earmarked for some other project, or robbed blind. "This type of deal requires a savvy tough administrator with no ties to government. I will not hold my breath for this person to happen. " Agreed.

However, developing our own oil so we are no longer dependent upon inports is crucial. Before oil becomes prohibitively expensive and forces the development of alternate fuels our wonderful country will be being run by someone else.
Comment
6 of 16
August 2, 2006
As wonderful as the idea seems there needs to be clear parameters for funds allocation or the deal will be a money sucking swamp. Too often the cash goes to friends of those in power.
Synthetic fuels comes to mind as a bonanza for a few companies and it provided basically no value - yet cost the taxpayers billions.

This type of deal requires a savvy tough administrator with no ties to government. I will not hold my breath for this person to happen.
Comment
7 of 16
August 2, 2006
In principle, I think it's a great idea. I like the idea of the proceeds going only to domestic alternative energy (AND conservation) -- keep the greedy politicians' hands out of the pot! I'd prefer a tax on gasoline as a source of the "American-Made Energy Trust Fund."

All new programs, especially coal, must meet very high environmental standards. The earth must be put back the way we found it. If that adds too much cost, then it's not a viable alternative.

Blaming Bush, the government, and big oil is easy. Why not co-opt the evil conservatives' desire for independence from Hugo Chavez and the Middle East for oil? Capitalize on their patriotic, independent spirit.

We, the people, need to lead the way. If ANWAR is off the table, what realistic, meaningful alternatives would we propose? What sacrifices are you personally willing to make?

[For the record, I'm an Independent tired of partisan b.s.]
Comment
8 of 16
August 2, 2006
Why not take the money from one day of military operations in Iraq which is $195,000,000.00 a day to fund renewables.
Comment
9 of 16
August 2, 2006
What would be better. Put oil drilling rigs up in Anwar or put a massive Wind Farm up in ANWAR. Actually a wind farm would require a smaller footprint over all than the Oil Drilling. Transmission Lines would not be cluttering the ground. What is the wind force in Alaska. Maybe the guy that was going to finance the Qatar East Coast Port deal could finance the Wind Farms in ANWAR. Maybe it would only cost $2 Billion.
Comment
10 of 16
August 2, 2006
We know the US is an oil-hogging nation; is providing more oil to keep the supply high, prices low, and thus demand high really the solution? Stay out of the wildlife parks, let oil get more and more expensive, and let consumer demand drive us to renewable energy. Government intervention will only keep the staus quo energy usage patterns in place, and I certainly don't want to trade our wildlife parks to keep all these SUVs and big trucks on the streets.
Comment
11 of 16
August 2, 2006
Put the money required to drill in ANWR into renewable energy and the long term benefits would be enormous. This idea is unpallatable and reveals the craftiness of the oil regime in trying to dupe the public. This plan still misses the point: Alaskan National Wildlife needs to be preserved, especially when the technology and finances exist for alternative energy resources.
Comment
12 of 16
August 2, 2006
The oil lobby will stop at nothing.l
Comment
13 of 16
August 3, 2006
"clear parameters for funds allocation... the cash goes to friends of those in power." Exactly. How do we keep $ out of pol's AND their buddies' hands, and avoid sink holes? Tough administrator and FULL disclosure are paramount.

To access funds, prior success should be demonstrated for technology. E.g., $ could fund rebates for buying hybrid cars, or incentives for increasing US hybrid car production. Ethanol smacks of a corn state boon doggle. Bio-diesel?

I've not been to ANWR and I'd guess few have.

"Before oil becomes prohibitively expensive...country will be being run by someone else." High prices are hard on us, but a major impetus for free market development. A "trust tax" increases price and incentives for alternative energy development.
Comment
14 of 16
August 4, 2006
For those who support drilling in ANWAR and think the alternative is personal sacrifice . . .
I paid a premium to own a Toyota Prius in '03. I have a battery powered lawnmower and chain saw.

If drilling in ANWAR is a bad idea for environmental reasons, then it is a bad idea no matter the incentives that oil-sponsored legislation offers.

Further, extending tax credits is not enough. I am personally preparing to add solar to my home. It is SO EXPENSIVE! What the federal gov. needs to do is offer grants to residential efforts.

If they offered funding to solar, and fuel cell tech the way they do guns, fighter planes and bombs, then we would be there already.
Comment
15 of 16
August 7, 2006
This may be the greatest policy change or the worst hoodwink. I hope this isn't a steal from Peter to pay Paul. There is NOTHING that excuses any potential massive caribou habitat destruction at the 'benefit' of humans. we may not see the effects in 2-5 yrs but would, and are already, seeing effects now. IF there is a preacautionary allowance to this then fine but I think there is a lot of excuse making. I think all petroleum sales should feed into this alternative energy fund. Any preference to one oil source for this presently smaks of blood money hush-ups. The oil industry is primed to advance anyways in this area - spinning this place and deceives the basic and it eludes and irritates the informed. All oil sales in a country could have this levered benefit
Comment
16 of 16
August 16, 2006
If less than 2% of American voters had voted the other way in the last presidential election I believe the world would be on the way to eliminating global warming through the use of renewable energy of all sorts. I do not understand the desire to continue to use oil or coal at the present rate, when we should be diminishing their use as rapidly as possible for the sake of humanity. Hurricanes, drought, floods, and the highest average recorded temperatures during the last ten years seem to have no impact on the thoughts of the administration. As an outsider I pray that US citizens do a better job next time.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

Prudent Living, Inc. Yingli Green Energy Americas, Inc. Solar Energy International (SEI) Dow Solar HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C. KACO new energy, Inc. Asia Solar Expo
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters