You appear confused too.
42 USC 15912, section 357 and calling it "Obama's bill"?
That is not Obama's bill. That is existing law, which Obama's bill (yes he has introduced one) will repeal.
The person who was confused about Obama's bill was JF Shepard.
------------------------------------------------------------
The US has the highest per capita expenditure on oil of any developed nation.
We're a rich country. I suspect we likely have the highest per capita expenditure on lots of things from pet food to toilet paper. No, I haven't checked those - they're just examples.
We import over 2/3's of our oil, transferring a massive amount of wealth.
Which is a reason to produce more here.
Energy is subsidized, for example, gasoline tax doesn't cover the cost of road maintenance, oil companies receive a "manufacturing tax deduction", even though other miners don't.
If you want to raise gasoline taxes, okay go ahead and propose that. Re. the domestic manufacturing tax deduction, mining is eligible for it as well.
The 2 other major developed economies in the world, Japan and German, have massively reduced their depence on petroleum through taxation and mass transit.
Taxation and mass transit alone? How about natural gas, coal, nuclear?
High estimates for ANWR (geologic, not seismic)+ OCS will lead to displacing 3-4% of imports, max.
Even if true, that is not a valid argument against developing ANWR and OCS. Furthermore the estimates you're referring to may well be too conservative - I know one such estimate done in 2006 assumed the price of oil would fall from 2006 on for a number of years.
The impact of OCS/ANWR on prices is expected to be in the low single digits/barrel.
I consider such price estimates worthless. No one knows for sure what the price impact will be because no one knows what will be found and what all the numerous other factors which will influence prices in the future will be. |
