Skip to comments.OECD and IEA recommend reforming fossil-fuel subsidies to improve the economy and the environment
Posted on 10/04/2011 1:51:23 PM PDT by larry hagedon
04 October 2011 Paris --- Governments and taxpayers spent about half a trillion dollars last year supporting the production and consumption of fossil fuels. Removing inefficient subsidies would raise national revenues and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, according to OECD and IEA analyses.
(Excerpt) Read more at iea.org ...
Yes, one that you have unfortunately made up your own title for.
The actual title is:
OECD and IEA recommend reforming fossil-fuel subsidies to improve the economy and the environment
That is what the Canadian pipe line is all about, getting American tax payers to subsidize the Canadians oil and pumping it to the gulf to sell on the world market and using eminent domain to steal land.
If Obama Wants To End Oil Subsidies, Why Then Is Brazil Getting $2 Billion Dollars In Oil Subsidies?
It turns out that they are all tax "breaks." I even hesitate to call them "breaks" because some of them amount to little more than Congress defining accounting terms such as "capital equipment." And the total amount of earnings not collected in taxes (which liberals define as a "subsidy") is about $4 billion per year.
To prevent duplication, please do not alter the published title, thanks.
Those petroleum and gas industry pays massive taxes in all these countries the article discusses. Some of the so called subsidies, particularly the ones in the US, are normal tax practices assigned to all business, but called subsidies only for the oil/gas industry.
Let us look at a specific example:
Domestic Manufacturers Deduction
-Allows taxpayers to claim a deduction equal to a percentage of US production
-Every US industry that qualifies receives a 9% deduction today except the oil and gas industry which was capped in 2008 at 6%.
So this “subsidy”, a tax deduction applied to all industries that “make something” get this tax deduction, except the oil/gas industry get less. For them we want to call it a subsidy and for everyone else we will call the larger tax break a incentive to keep their work here in the US.
Now consider the massive taxes paid by this industry, taxes paid are often 2~3 times larger than the profits they get to keep.
If we tripled you taxes, then allowed you deduct 6% of it for not leaving the country, would that also be a subsidy?
I'd say the OECD and IEA are full of shiite.
The "green energy" scam, from our own lovable DoE:
Note the quasi-deceptive arrangement of graphs -- wind and solar are 9% and 1% (respectively) of only 8% of the energy total. In other words, the two "green energy" sources getting these subsidies in toto generate much less than 1% of U.S. energy needs.
h/t to Cincinatus
Looking at NG, Petroleum, Coal and Nuclear just slight increases in each of these would mean billions in growth and tens of thousands of jobs...sans subsidies.