<Discussion Thread for CNBC's America's Oil CrisisThe Oil DrumPortugal getting a hand on Venezuela's energy riches>

47 comments on Let's Discuss: H.R. 6107, the American Energy Independence and Price Reduction Act

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Prof. Goose on May 22, 2008 - 7:21pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I couldn't agree more...but I thought this whole piece of legislation was worth discussing...

Realpolitik. It's fun!

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Will Stewart on May 22, 2008 - 9:11pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The program I was referring to was the Partnership for a New Generation Vehicle (PNGV), where the Big 3 and the US entered into a public-private partnership to bring 80 mpg family cars to production in the 2005 timeframe. The Clinton Administration chose this path instead of raising CAFE, wanting to work with Detroit instead of just regulating it. Of course, the Big 3 worked against America's energy security by having the program killed by their funded Presidential appointee.

And then the Big 3 complained last year during Energy Policy deliberations that they couldn't possibly raise their vehicle fleet mpg average up to 40 mpg in 12 years. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/06/auto_industry_s.html

But then they couldn't explain how Toyota could be in the 6th year of producing a 50 mpg family car. And how 300 mpg 2-seaters like the Aptera will be coming out in 2010.

But additional lobbying by the American Petroleum Institute helped sway just enough Senators to threaten a filibuster against a 40 mpg CAFE.

You're absolutely right, of course, to bring this to everyone's attention for discussion. Much as I like Rep. Bartlett's attention to Peak Oil, I can say that there are mitigations that are far and away more effective than opening up ANWR, which should be held out as the last possible step after all others have been put into place.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
geek7 on May 22, 2008 - 10:51pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

ANWR is an environmental preserve for sensitive arctic ecosystem. Since we are not making much progress on limiting CO2 emissions, the ANWR land will not be arctic in a few years. I think we should not drill there until it is no longer an arctic ecosystem. It will only be a few years delay in getting the oil.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
BillJames on May 23, 2008 - 9:33am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I spent 3 years as an Arctic Light Infantryman, a lot of the time near the Alaska pipeline. It is possible to tap ANWR without damage. It is a much better alternative to oil sands.

But drilling in ANWR should be tied to allowing privately financed transportation networks that can achieve 5X CAFE; exceed efficiencies of 5 times current CAFE Standards or about 100 miles per gallon.

Here is a draft resolution provided to John Darnell in Congressman Bartlett's office and Bill Richard in Congressman Oberstar's office.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
pianoguy1 on May 23, 2008 - 11:58am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

In a great example of the law of unintended consequences, the PNGV was one of Toyota's major motivations to develop the Prius. They were convinced that, unless they acted immediately, they'd be left behind when Detroit introduced its line of fuel-efficient vehicles.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.