IBJNews

Lugar pushes energy savings, more oil production

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar is pushing a national energy plan he says will save billions of dollars by increasing domestic oil production and improving energy efficiency.

Lugar rolled out his plan Thursday morning on Facebook. His proposal would cut foreign oil consumption by 50 percent by 2030, open access to Alaska oil reserves and end what Lugar called an oil drilling "permitorium" put in place by the Obama administration after last year's gulf oil spill.

Lugar also aims to save American's $33 billion annually through energy conservation, in part by subsidizing retrofits to improve energy efficiency in buildings. He says the savings would create an "unexpected windfall."

Lugar spokesman Andy Fisher said that while the energy debate has been pushed to the backburner in Washington — as lawmakers wrestle with the budget and the nation's debt ceiling — Lugar is floating the plan now so that it is out there when the energy debate re-emerges as a front-burner issue.

The veteran lawmaker is facing a tough Republican primary challenge from state Treasurer Richard Mourdock.

But most of the benefits of the energy plan would not be seen until 2030, long after Americans have recovered from the current recession, said Mourdock spokesman Chris Conner, who panned it as "repackaged" Lugar ideas which have been unsuccessful before.

"It also seems a little light on specifics as to how the plan would actually be executed," Conner said.

Efforts to pass sweeping energy legislation through Congress have stalled in recent years, stumbling over regional political divides and partisan battles over the issue of global warming.

More recently, efforts to end annual corn ethanol subsidies — backed in part by many conservative lawmakers — were blocked by a coalition of farm-state lawmakers, including both Lugar and U.S. Sen. Dan Coats.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • I agree
    LandMime,

    I agree that it's sad that we're not investing as a country in alternative energy. Instead, our politicians would rather have a "us vs. them" attitude towards every little thing. This should not be a conservative vs. liberal problem. It's a human problem.
  • Oil is still God
    With all due respect for Senator Lugar, he is simply doing what the oil companies have always wanted to do. Drill baby drill.

    This is a point in human history when a tough choice about future energy needs to be made. We are over populating this world and the demand for shelter, food, water, and energy is just exploding. So what's the worse solution possible? More of the same: Drill baby drill, and cut off mountaintops for more coal. When will it stop?

    Human beings are sucking the life from the planet. Everything is for human needs. This is not living in harmony with the diverse world God gifted to us. It is a recipe for disaster.

    We cannot just continue the same old technologies, ignoring the needs of other life forms. Systemic change needs to happen in our attitudes and wants. We need to cut our energy use and find new sustainable energies now. Not sometime in the future.
  • Lugar Energy Plan
    for your information
  • politics
    Energy conservation and ethanol subsidies don't go together, but that's politics. Even when you are as old and accomplished as Lugar, elections come first, greater good comes second.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Apologies for the wall of text. I promise I had this nicely formatted in paragraphs in Notepad before pasting here.

  2. I believe that is incorrect Sir, the people's tax-dollars are NOT paying for the companies investment. Without the tax-break the company would be paying an ADDITIONAL $11.1 million in taxes ON TOP of their $22.5 Million investment (Building + IT), for a total of $33.6M or a 50% tax rate. Also, the article does not specify what the total taxes were BEFORE the break. Usually such a corporate tax-break is a 'discount' not a 100% wavier of tax obligations. For sake of example lets say the original taxes added up to $30M over 10 years. $12.5M, New Building $10.0M, IT infrastructure $30.0M, Total Taxes (Example Number) == $52.5M ININ's Cost - $1.8M /10 years, Tax Break (Building) - $0.75M /10 years, Tax Break (IT Infrastructure) - $8.6M /2 years, Tax Breaks (against Hiring Commitment: 430 new jobs /2 years) == 11.5M Possible tax breaks. ININ TOTAL COST: $41M Even if you assume a 100% break, change the '30.0M' to '11.5M' and you can see the Company will be paying a minimum of $22.5, out-of-pocket for their capital-investment - NOT the tax-payers. Also note, much of this money is being spent locally in Indiana and it is creating 430 jobs in your city. I admit I'm a little unclear which tax-breaks are allocated to exactly which expenses. Clearly this is all oversimplified but I think we have both made our points! :) Sorry for the long post.

  3. Clearly, there is a lack of a basic understanding of economics. It is not up to the company to decide what to pay its workers. If companies were able to decide how much to pay their workers then why wouldn't they pay everyone minimum wage? Why choose to pay $10 or $14 when they could pay $7? The answer is that companies DO NOT decide how much to pay workers. It is the market that dictates what a worker is worth and how much they should get paid. If Lowe's chooses to pay a call center worker $7 an hour it will not be able to hire anyone for the job, because all those people will work for someone else paying the market rate of $10-$14 an hour. This forces Lowes to pay its workers that much. Not because it wants to pay them that much out of the goodness of their heart, but because it has to pay them that much in order to stay competitive and attract good workers.

  4. GOOD DAY to you I am Mr Howell Henry, a Reputable, Legitimate & an accredited money Lender. I loan money out to individuals in need of financial assistance. Do you have a bad credit or are you in need of money to pay bills? i want to use this medium to inform you that i render reliable beneficiary assistance as I'll be glad to offer you a loan at 2% interest rate to reliable individuals. Services Rendered include: *Refinance *Home Improvement *Inventor Loans *Auto Loans *Debt Consolidation *Horse Loans *Line of Credit *Second Mortgage *Business Loans *Personal Loans *International Loans. Please write back if interested. Upon Response, you'll be mailed a Loan application form to fill. (No social security and no credit check, 100% Guaranteed!) I Look forward permitting me to be of service to you. You can contact me via e-mail howellhenryloanfirm@gmail.com Yours Sincerely MR Howell Henry(MD)

  5. It is sad to see these races not have a full attendance. The Indy Car races are so much more exciting than Nascar. It seems to me the commenters here are still a little upset with Tony George from a move he made 20 years ago. It was his decision to make, not yours. He lost his position over it. But I believe the problem in all pro sports is the escalating price of admission. In todays economy, people have to pay much more for food and gas. The average fan cannot attend many events anymore. It's gotten priced out of most peoples budgets.

ADVERTISEMENT