Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: larry hagedon
"Eliminating those would provide "a significant down payment" toward the US goal of cutting fossil fuel emissions in half by 2050, Froman said......"The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development said in a report last week that removing fossil fuel subsidies could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 10 percent in 2050."

Who, with a rational mind, calls a "reduction of greenhouse gas emissions" at the rate of 00.25 percent a year (a mere ten percent over a total of forty years) a "significant down payment"?

No one. So, in spite of the rhetorical language that Obama used, the factual information amounts to a minuscule so-called "down payment".

And is it worth it??

"In the US alone, the federal government gave US$72 billion in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry between 2002 and 2008, according to a study by the Environmental Law Institute."

Yes true. Is it significant? $72 billion over six years amounts to $12 billion a year - TO THE ENTIRE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY.

Yet Exxon-Mobile alone payed $116.2 billion in taxes in 2008 alone - all by itself.

As usual, Obama is pandering to the ignorant and offering a smokescreen of snake oil that will never deliver a significant reduction in "green gas emissions" or greater energy security.

34 posted on 09/23/2009 1:46:48 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Wuli

My point Muli, is that the fossil fuel industry is subsidized even greater than alternative energies.

That is my point, no more no less.

I have no answers for you beyond what the article said.


39 posted on 09/23/2009 4:25:36 PM PDT by larry hagedon (born and raised and retired in Iowa.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson