Obama calls for investment in clean energy

Mar 10, 2012
Gas prices are displayed at a Shell gas station pump in San Francisco, California. US President Barack Obama has called on Congress to invest more money in clean energy technologies and end multi-billion-dollar subsidies given each year to oil companies.

US President Barack Obama called on Congress Saturday to invest more money in clean energy technologies and end multi-billion-dollar subsidies given each year to oil companies.

"I want this Congress to stop the giveaways to an that's never been more profitable, and invest in a clean that's never been more promising," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address.

"We should be investing in the technology that's building the cars and trucks and jets that will prevent us from dealing with these high gas prices year after year after year," he added.

The comments came as the president faced mounting criticism from Republicans, who have blamed his for spiking gas prices.

The American Automobile Association (AAA) predicts across the United States could average $4.25 a gallon by May, up from over $3.60 today.

Between 1998 and 2004, prices ranged from $1 to $2.

Prices vary wildly between regions, however, and last week, gasbuddy.com, a website that tracks prices in all 50 states, reported $5.09 a gallon at one Mobil and two Chevron stations in greater Los Angeles.

Given that 76 percent of Americans drive themselves to work, and a trip to the store can often mean a long drive to the mall, higher gas prices are a critical issue -- especially in a presidential election year.

The president said that under his administration, domestic oil production has been on the rise and the number of operating has quadrupled.

But he argued the United States won't be able to solve its energy problem just by drilling more oil wells.

"But you and I both know that with only two percent of the world's oil reserves, we can't just drill our way to lower - not when we consume 20 percent of the world's oil," Obama said. "We need an all-of-the-above strategy that relies less on foreign oil and more on American-made energy - solar, wind, natural gas, biofuels, and more."

He noted that his administration had already put in place new standards that will make sure that American cars average nearly 55 miles per gallon (88.5 kilometers per 3.8 liters) by the middle of the next decade - nearly double what they get today.

The president also called for ending the $4 billion a year in tax breaks that US oil companies receive each year.

"We've been handing out these kinds of taxpayer giveaways for nearly a century," he said. "And outside of Congress, does anyone really think that's still a good idea?"

Explore further: Google offers big prize for small power box

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Obama unveils new car efficiency standards

Jul 29, 2011

US President Barack Obama on Friday unveiled a new deal with automakers on fuel economy standards that he said would be a crucial step towards reducing US dependence on foreign oil.

Obama to announce new car efficiency standards

Jul 27, 2011

US President Barack Obama will later this week unveil new fuel efficiency standards for passenger cars and light trucks for the 2017-2025 period, the White House said Wednesday.

UW Economist: High Prices at the Pump to Last for Months

Apr 26, 2006

As President Bush Tuesday called for temporarily halting deposits to the nation’s strategic petroleum reserve to make more oil available for consumer need and has ordered investigations into whether the price of gasoline ...

Recommended for you

User comments : 25

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Doug_Huffman
2.1 / 5 (15) Mar 10, 2012
I'm sure that he means hydrogen mines and battery trees. Imagine if we could grow a battery tree as big as General Sherman, then we could just harvest the Tesla batteries.
Callippo
Mar 10, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Callippo
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 10, 2012
The list of reputable scientific institutions that have done Ni H experiments is quite impressive and includes: The University of MissouriKansas City, the Department of Nuclear, Plasma, and Radiological Engineering, University of Illinois, the University of Siena, Italy, the USAF, the SRI, the National Institute of Nuclear Physics (Italy) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Members of these respected institutions have already publicly declared that they have also achieved anomalous heat from the Ni H reaction. On Thursday, March 22nd, the CERN Colloquium held by two successful replicators of cold fusion will be dedicated to overview of theoretical and experimental progress in low energy nuclear reactions.
Callippo
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2012
The prototype version of the E-Cat is a small and smooth device, controlled with an on/off button. On February 20, 2012 Rossi performed a demonstration to show the actual level of development. Among the participants was Roland Pettersson, retired Associate Professor from the University of Uppsala and a former member of Swedish skeptical society, who also attended a test of Rossis E-cat on 6 October 2011. The E-cat was operated without refilling from a hydrogen canister. Instead the hydrogen was supposedly stored in a piece of solid material possibly in a metal hydride. The material contained a few grams of hydrogen gas which would last for six months of operation, according to Rossi. Production is planned to start next winter or at least within 18 months, and a million units should be manufactured per year for a price between 600 and 900 dollars.
Tangent2
1.9 / 5 (13) Mar 10, 2012
Something needs to be done soon by the US since the Canadian oil producers are going to start sending the oil to Eastern Canada instead of shipping to the US for refining, further details here:

http://www.calgar...ory.html

Also.. if the US were to simply invest in the tar sands oil extraction equipment then the gas prices wouldn't be so ridiculously high and foreign dependency would be diminished.
Estevan57
2.4 / 5 (35) Mar 10, 2012
I believe Obamas' call for investment in clean energy is part of his campaign to eliminate the tax breaks on the energy companies and pass his energy policy. The US will be hearing this until the tax breaks are gone. (Or he is gone.)

There are no quarantees whatsoever that the tar sands oil will lower US gas prices. The owner-operators of the pipelines and refineries involved have no obligation to provide this oil to US consumers. The highest bidder will get the oil, or it's refined products. The primary reason for the pipeline is to provide oil for refineries, which will add value to the oil and sell it at higher margins, due to the lower transportation cost.

Callipo, your comments are verbatum from your other posts on green energy. Are you a schill for Rossi? I will report these as spam.

CapitalismPrevails
2.4 / 5 (17) Mar 10, 2012
Oil companies have an average 10% net annual profit compared to Silicon Valley technology companies getting an average 30% annual profit. If you want the price of oil to go down, give the futures traders a reason to speculate down by approving the Keystone pipeline. It's very convenient for this administration to say oil production is the highest it's every been under them, but that is misleading. Vast majority of the the new oil production is from permits granted by the Bush administration and this administration hasn't even approved anywhere close to as many permits as the prior.
As far as alternative energy investments, why not cut subsidies for the current nuclear industry so LFTR will get a better look?
neillevine3
Mar 10, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Estevan57
2.3 / 5 (32) Mar 10, 2012
The sad reality is that much of todays oil hysteria has to do with a falling dollar since 2001 that has driven up oil prices, and created the highly false impression that oil is a function of not enough drilling stateside. All the more reason to invest in alternatives.

The problem that many people have with the subsidies going to energy companies is not the profit margin of the companies, but of the wisdom of billion dollar subsidies and tax breaks going to companies that combine to have 38,000,000,000 in profits in a fiscal quarter. (2011) Silicon Valley corporations may be more profitable, and deservably so, but they don't bleed taxpayers of billions of dollars.

The name of the pipeline should be changed to the "Panacea Pipeline".

"We need an all-of-the-above strategy that relies less on foreign oil and more on American-made energy - solar, wind, natural gas, biofuels, and more." I agree, regardless of politics.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (39) Mar 10, 2012
On Thursday, March 22nd, the CERN Colloquium " - Callippo

That is nice. It is a shame that they just rented a hall in the cern facility and are trading on the reputation of the facility rather than presenting as part of the facility professionals there.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (40) Mar 10, 2012
"Newt's $2.50 gas would accomplish a lot more." - Tard of Tards

Newt's 2.50 gas is just the latest example of the manipulations he uses to control the deluded and delusional.
Estevan57
2 / 5 (29) Mar 10, 2012
Name calling in a feedback forum within a science website is VERY childish and rude. Grow up a little. If you disagree, fine, but why call names?
Sanescience
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2012
"Expensive" gas has a lot of issues feeding it. Certainly inflation, emissions formulations, futures, and world events are a big part. But now that people are using less of it, I wonder if the industry is starting to price in their converting to alternative sources of hydrocarbon energy carrying fuel.

I suspect once the first major supplier provides a fully sustainable product (say, gasoline and diesel from cellulose and lignin) the conversion away from fossil fuels for transportation might be very rapid.
CapitalismPrevails
2.5 / 5 (11) Mar 11, 2012
I forgot to add a link. Its a physorg article about "ionic liquids" cutting down the price tar sands extraction considerably.

http://www.physor...led.html
ForFreeMinds
1.9 / 5 (18) Mar 11, 2012
The title should be translated to reality. Instead it should say, Obama calls for more government spending to his crony crapitalist friends who return a portion of the spending to his campaign.

So now that he's finished extracting campaign cash from health insurers, he's working on extracting it from companies in the energy industry.
Jotaf
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2012
ForFreeMinds: That's all political talk. You didn't say anything about the merits (or otherwise) of ending tax breaks for oil companies and giving them to other energy companies.
Egleton
1 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2012
The poor duck has been misled by his advisors. We have a choice, swallow our egos and fund cold fusion research or go to war with Iran. Puny chemical energy reactions just don't cut the mustard.
Choose. Save your egos and war or ditch the ego.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (41) Mar 11, 2012
"If you disagree, fine, but why call names?" - Extevan

Because inferiors are unworthy of respect when they chatter nonsense like mentally defective children.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 11, 2012
One must have some capital before it can be invested.
The present socialist regime is destroying capital leaving nothing to invest.
rwinners
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2012
I most agree with Estevan. We do need an ALL AVAILABLE SOURCES type of policy. Since the conventional sources are self sustaining, we need to place more financial emphasis on renewables. Sure, there will be failures. That is not the point. There are many more successes. Drive across the western plains sometime and watch for the windmills. They are there, but not in the quantities possible.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2012
The poor duck has been misled by his advisors. We have a choice, swallow our egos and fund cold fusion research or go to war with Iran. Puny chemical energy reactions just don't cut the mustard.
Choose. Save your egos and war or ditch the ego.
What else to add? It's essentially the way, you're describing. With the only exception: the refusal of cold fusion isn't just a matter of injured ego, but very large amount of grants, investments and job opportunities spend into alternative research. The people who are ignoring the cold fusion research by now have a much more things to lose, than just their private ego and pride.
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2012
Before investing more taxpayers' money in Obama's favorite solar and other renewables sources companies, let Obama show good faith by recovering that money given to Solyndra and other solar corporations that went bankrupt, and returning that money to the U.S. Treasury to be counted to make whole what was stolen from the American people. Other than a full accounting of that money and its recovery, there is no evidence that there will not be a repeat of his failed policy of investing good money after bad. We got burned once already with bad investments in his decision of which companies would receive the money through the Department of Energy. Do we want to be fooled again? Or are we going to be far more cautious as to who and what gets our hard earned cash to manufacture that which should have been made already and in full production for our use.
If Obama can prove that he's not a shyster and that Solyndra et al was an unfortunate debacle, then it might be worth looking into.
RitchieGuy
1.9 / 5 (8) Mar 13, 2012
The poor duck has been misled by his advisors. We have a choice, swallow our egos and fund cold fusion research or go to war with Iran. Puny chemical energy reactions just don't cut the mustard.
Choose. Save your egos and war or ditch the ego.
What else to add? It's essentially the way, you're describing. With the only exception: the refusal of cold fusion isn't just a matter of injured ego, but very large amount of grants, investments and job opportunities spend into alternative research. The people who are ignoring the cold fusion research by now have a much more things to lose, than just their private ego and pride.

@Callippo. . .you are preaching to the wrong people in Physorg. Most of us have no idea why you are relentlessly pushing this Cold Fusion idea on us. Are you looking to get Physorg membership to invest in Rossi's e-cat? There is no prove whatsoever that the method works; only hearsay and your faith in it is all you're selling. Where is your proo
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (14) Mar 13, 2012
Speaking of preaching to the wrong people you really need to address this richie

As I've said before, I will be planting sweet sorghum soon, and the resulting sugars will be fermented into ethanol...to store the ethanol locally blah
Funny. U of Arizona is only just now working on a pilot plant project for sweet sorghum. They've grown 40 acres (coincidence?) but couldn't manage the logistics for even this test project because the intermediate support is not yet available.
http://obpreview2...t%20.pdf

-So without further research (I don't feel like wasting an additional 5 minutes) I feel confident in reiterating the conclusion that I share with most everyone who reads your posts, that you are a liar. Unless you can disprove it? Come on, prove you're not the lying imbecile you apparently are. IMO. LOL.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (39) Mar 13, 2012
Investing in stock market futures, derivatives, and outright borrowing from a bank are three different methods of investing where one need not have capital before it can be invested.

"One must have some capital before it can be invested." - RyggTard

Do you intend to remain an idiot for the rest of your life Tard Boy?

Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (41) Mar 13, 2012
"... let Obama show good faith by recovering that money given to Solyndra ..." - RichieTard

Sure, once the profits stolen from the American people by Halliburton are returned to the American people.

But I do think it is a shame that because of the corporate failure of Solyndra, America will never have a domestic PV power generating capacity and will always be under the thumb of China when it comes to PV modules.

RitchieTard - like all Republicans - seems to be playing the economic game to lose.
Xbw
3.2 / 5 (11) Mar 13, 2012
Energy self sufficiency should not be a political debate. You don't have to be a liberal to want less expensive and less unhealthy ways of producing energy. I think the goal of completely renewable fuel should be shared by all.

I'm certainly no tree hugger, in fact, you would classify me as a conservative, but I think that we should all work toward green energy. Sadly, it's all about the money. Politicians try to sway the crowd one way or another and it all boils down to money.

Oh and to clarify, I could care less about global warming. I just prefer not to look out my window and see a brown haze. It seems pretty common sense to care for the health of all life.