Obama to cut fossil fuel subsidies

New Zealand site; http://www.3news.co.nz/ ^ | 9/23/2009 | Assiciated Press

[larry hagedon]

yep

[larry hagedon]

yep

[larry hagedon]

your local physicist posted; "It’s also a myth that oil companies make “windfall profits.” Their after-tax profit margins are well below the margins of many software, drug, and medical device companies. Oil companies get attacked by the left largely because they are located mainly in conservative states in the South and Southwest." larrys reply This has long been a peeve of mine, you are sure correct on this one.

[larry hagedon]

http://www.eli.org/

http://www.eli.org/pdf/Energy_Subsidies_Black_Not_Green.pdf

http://www.eli.org/pressdetail.cfm?ID=205

somebody’s wrong, you or them.

[larry hagedon]

yep

[larry hagedon]

yep

[larry hagedon]

I googled some numbers.

http://www.eli.org

http://www.eli.org/pressdetail.cfm?ID=205

http://www.eli.org/pdf/Energy_Subsidies_Black_Not_Green.pdf

[larry hagedon]

My apologies for the typo with Wuli, I usually copy and paste screen names.

I googled some numbers.

http://www.eli.org/

http://www.eli.org/pdf/Energy_Subsidies_Black_Not_Green.pdf

http://www.eli.org/pressdetail.cfm?ID=205

[larry hagedon]

good points all, whateveryournameis.

I am a strong supporter of Bio technology and alternate energies, a fact that riles my grown kids to no end.

At the same time I believe global warming is a myth, which makes for strange bedfellows sometimes.

As a retired guy with a restless mind, I have been following the growth of bio technologies closely on-line for a couple of years.

I am both amazed at how it is growing and appalled at how many conservatives blindly despise it.

It is my considered opinion that Conservatives should strongly support American industry, making American products in America.

When I challenge conservatives with this, they always say “But it is subsidized” I grit my teeth and say, “But so is petroleum” The response is always “NO, that can not be true”

As you must know, finding cites for petroleum subsidies is hard to do.

sigh

So I grabbed on this article like a drunken sailor grabs a full bottle.

Yep, I was mad, over it now.

[larry hagedon]

LOL, now thats funny.

http://www.eli.org/pdf/

http://www.eli.org/pdf/Energy_Subsidies_Black_Not_Green.pdf

http://www.eli.org/pressdetail.cfm?ID=205

[larry hagedon]

One of us has.

[larry hagedon]

Yep, you are right,

This has long been a hot topic for me. For years otherwise good solid conservatives have looked me in the eye and insisted there is no subsidy for petroleum, one of the most subsidized commodities in history.

I do get a bit sensitive to that after a while.

[larry hagedon]

good points all, still all parties on all sides of the issue agreed thru out the article that there are subsidies.

My point is that there are and for 50 years have been significant petroleum subsidies.

If anyone wants to believe that the powerful petroleum industry, with its 50 year road fuel, natural gas and heating oil monopolies has not wrested massive subsidies out of politicians, go for it. I choose to believe differently.

[larry hagedon]

LOL, you are funny.

[larry hagedon]

yep

[Freedom56v2]

that would injure trees which would be able to sue you (goal of the new science czar).

[Double Tap]

You keep posting the same silly crap about tax breaks being labeled as subsidies. You are not getting any responses because everyone knows you are either an idiot or a troll.

But you are a persistent idiot/troll...

[Wuli]

From http://www.eli.org/ "Fossil fuels benefited from approximately $72 billion over the seven-year period, while subsidies for renewable fuels totaled only $29 billion. More than half the subsidies for renewables—$16.8 billion—are attributable to corn-based ethanol, the climate effects of which are hotly disputed. Of the fossil fuel subsidies, $70.2 billion went to traditional sources—such as coal and oil—and $2.3 billion went to carbon capture and storage, which is designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants. Thus, energy subsidies highly favored energy sources that emit high levels of greenhouse gases over sources that would decrease our climate footprint."

And, of the $29 billion for "renewables", what was either the total, or the per-gallon-of-production (or it's energy equivalent) produced to receive that $29 billion? Or, even, what was either the revenue (taxable income) or taxes paid, on what was produced using that $29 billion in subsidy./p>

Until you can put the "renewable" subsidy into an equivalent context with energy produced, taxable revenue achieved, per-gallon (or equivalent energy) and net return, on the subsidy alone, there is no way to call the fossil fuel subsidy "greater" in any sense of energy efficiency, or economic efficiency. Aggregate numbers, with no context to what the "subsidy" helped produce, tells you next to nothing. Its an apples vs oranges comparison.

Your next link:

http://www.eli.org/pdf/Energy_Subsidies_Black_Not_Green.pdf

supplies the same data in the same out of context measurements. Its like saying "Exxon is more greedy because it got five times the revenue of IBM". So what? What did Exxon produce, at what cost and what cents on the dollar of that revenue did it keep - all compared to IBM? With no context for comparison, other than "revenue" (or "subsidies") you have no idea who got a bigger "profit" (or "subsidy") in terms of what was actually produced by the production for which the "profit" (or subsidy") was received.

The comparison that is needed, is:

fossil fuels provided X-1 of 1,000 BTUs of energy, produced X-2 amount of revenue, and made X-3 % of revenue as profit, while getting X-4 % of revenue as subsidy(ies), and then paid X-5 % of revenue in taxes;

while alternative energy mode (1) provided Y-1 of 1,000s of BTUs of energy, produced Y-2 amount of revenue, and made Y-3 % of revenue as profit, while getting Y-4 % of revenue as subsidy(ies), and then paid Y-5 % of revenue in taxes; and

while alternative energy mode (2) provided Z-1 of 1,000s of BTUs of energy, produced Z-2 amount of revenue, and made Z-3 % of revenue as profit, while getting Z-4 % of revenue as subsidy(ies), and then paid Z-5 % of revenue in taxes.

You can pick any alternative energy you want, and I am sure that the subsidies they get, per each 1,000 BTUs of energy they produce and per dollar of taxable revenue they earn, and per dollar of profit they keep and per dollar of taxes they pay are all greater in that sense - the only meaningful sense - than fossil fuel subsidies. Getting $72 billion "subsidy" to move my car millions of miles, is not a greater subsidy than the $29 billion someone else gets to move their car a small fraction of that. Each mile of subsidy on the product of their energy input is far greater than mine.

[businessprofessor]

You have given me a good laugh with those leftist sources. The same leftists insist that the gulf wars were a subsidy to big oil.

It is easy to tell the truth in this debate. Individuals and businesses demand petroleum and natural gas products. No subsidies or mandates are necessary to encourage individuals to use these products. The oil and natural gas industries pays burdensome taxes and must comply with onerous regulations at every stage of production. Still the industry begs to develop energy resources in the most promising locations only to be shunned and taxed even more by politicians with a Utopian vision of energy production.

The renewable industry was conceived of mandates and subsidies. The industry would collapse without the mandates and subsidies. The industry lobbies heavily for new mandates and subsidies. No one except leftist want the renewable product because it is much more expensive. Renewable energy is boutique energy. Power companies are bribed and forced to buy renewable power.

[larry hagedon]

Ignorance is a sad thing Professor. I feel sorry for you.