End Green Energy Subsidies Now!

[CowboyTed]

United States[edit]
Allocation of subsidies in the United States[edit]
A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[19] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period. Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. The MISI report found that non-hydro renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) benefited from $74 billion in federal subsidies, or 9% of the total, largely in the form of tax policy and direct federal expenditures on research and development (R&D). Nuclear power benefited from $73 billion in federal subsidies, 9% of the total, largely in the form of R&D, while hydro power received $90 billion in federal subsidies, 12% of the total.






Hey rabbit. You should go after wiki for being able to post shit like this that you claim is wrong. Maybe you could do the edit to set them straight. Cause everybody don't seem to know that the oil and gas industry doesn't receive any subsidies.

Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances

This means as they deplete the resource, they get to write down the cost.
For instance, they buy a well that has 1 million bbls (estimated) and they extract 100,000 bbls
this year, they'd write off 10% of what they paid for the well.
That's standard business practice, not a special subsidy for oil.

oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls

You've got to be a really stupid liberal to think an exemption from the government telling you what
price you have to sell your product is a subsidy.

Tap that vein man, you just need the black stuff.....

 

[The Rabbi]

I dont get any subsidies. BUt thanks for trying.

So you don't take any deductions or credits or exemptions on your taxes?

Those arent subsidies. Try again.

 

[The Rabbi]

Green energy has always been more expensive than traditional fuels. Which is why the industry wouldn't exist without extensive gov't subsidies.

Now let's introduce some facts:

The oil and gas industries have received approximately $446.96 billion in subsidies from the United States, as opposed to just $5.93 billion for renewables, since 1918. In fact, the average annual subsidization of fossil fuels is more than 13x greater than the average annual subsidization of renewable energy, even though fossil fuels have been receiving government support for 70 years longer than renewables have.

In 2011, worldwide pre-tax subsidies for fossil fuels reached $480 billion. On a post-tax basis, in which carbon emissions, environmental damage, and negative public health effects are taken into account, worldwide government subsidies for fossil fuels totaled $1.9 trillion.

Eliminating the 12 subsidies for fossil fuels in the U.S. would save $41.4 billion over 10 years without increasing fuel prices, reducing employment, or weakening U.S. energy security.

An April, 2014 Gallup poll found that 67% of all Americans – Democrat and Republican – support increased government investment in renewable technologies like wind and solar.

Government support for renewable energy is costly ineffective and more significant than support for conventional fossil fuels. Energy Fact Check

You still havent produced any proof there are any subsidies.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

United States[edit]
Allocation of subsidies in the United States[edit]
A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[19] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period. Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. The MISI report found that non-hydro renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) benefited from $74 billion in federal subsidies, or 9% of the total, largely in the form of tax policy and direct federal expenditures on research and development (R&D). Nuclear power benefited from $73 billion in federal subsidies, 9% of the total, largely in the form of R&D, while hydro power received $90 billion in federal subsidies, 12% of the total.






Hey rabbit. You should go after wiki for being able to post shit like this that you claim is wrong. Maybe you could do the edit to set them straight. Cause everybody don't seem to know that the oil and gas industry doesn't receive any subsidies.

Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances

This means as they deplete the resource, they get to write down the cost.
For instance, they buy a well that has 1 million bbls (estimated) and they extract 100,000 bbls
this year, they'd write off 10% of what they paid for the well.
That's standard business practice, not a special subsidy for oil.

oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls

You've got to be a really stupid liberal to think an exemption from the government telling you what
price you have to sell your product is a subsidy.

Tap that vein man, you just need the black stuff.....

Your posts are killing Mother Earth. You should stop.

 

[dblack]

You still havent produced any proof there are any subsidies.

Case in point....

 

[dblack]

The subsidy/incentive game is more or less the same as pork spending. We can get fairly broad consensus is should stop, but no one wants to let go of their favorite carve outs. (home mortgage deduction, for example).

Home mortgage deduction helps people to become home owners. Supported by the real estate industry also, of course.

And, most importantly, the mortgage industry. The banksters gonna get their cut.

Until we nationalize the banks, or get politicians that aren't owned by the banks, the gangsters will always get their cut....

HA... nationalizing the banks will give them the whole enchilada.

Still, home mortgage deduction helps the average person be a home owner.

Actually, it doesn't. It "helps" the average person into a lifetime of debt. Arguably, it impedes real ownership.

 

[CowboyTed]

Coal gets all kinds of breaks in the tax code.

Coal also gets discounted royalty fees to mine federal lands, low interest loans, grants.

According to the Energy Information Administration, coal received $557 billion in subsidies in 2008.

See page xiii for the huge differences between the subsidies provided to fossil fuels versus renewables.

Not to mention the indirect subsidy of Healthcare:
The Breakthrough Institute - Coal Kills 4 000 Times More People Per Unit of Energy than Nuclear

Explore the True Costs of Coal The Center for Health and the Global Environment
Air Pollution
M: Lung disease: Particulates and oxides of nitrogen and sulfur kill over 24,000 people annually, including 2,800 from lung cancer (2005). Heart disease: 38,200 non-fatal heart attacks annually.

E: Lives lost evaluated at $187.5 bn/yr.

Q: Air pollution also damages trees, crops and property.


There is a few others like Mercury, MTR, Abandoned Fields.....

This puts Coal at around €200bn a year...

Just like Oil no one wants to look at indirect costs....

And haven't even looked at Climate Change.

 

[CowboyTed]

Coal gets all kinds of breaks in the tax code.

Coal also gets discounted royalty fees to mine federal lands, low interest loans, grants.

According to the Energy Information Administration, coal received $557 billion in subsidies in 2008.

See page xiii for the huge differences between the subsidies provided to fossil fuels versus renewables.

Not to mention the indirect subsidy of Healthcare:
The Breakthrough Institute - Coal Kills 4 000 Times More People Per Unit of Energy than Nuclear

Explore the True Costs of Coal The Center for Health and the Global Environment
Air Pollution
M: Lung disease: Particulates and oxides of nitrogen and sulfur kill over 24,000 people annually, including 2,800 from lung cancer (2005). Heart disease: 38,200 non-fatal heart attacks annually.

E: Lives lost evaluated at $187.5 bn/yr.

Q: Air pollution also damages trees, crops and property.

There is a few others like Mercury, MTR, Abandoned Fields.....

This puts Coal at around €200bn a year...

Just like Oil no one wants to look at indirect costs....

And haven't even looked at Climate Change.

The case is simple can America afford to keep using Oil and Coal...

 

[The Rabbi]

Coal gets all kinds of breaks in the tax code.

Coal also gets discounted royalty fees to mine federal lands, low interest loans, grants.

According to the Energy Information Administration, coal received $557 billion in subsidies in 2008.

See page xiii for the huge differences between the subsidies provided to fossil fuels versus renewables.

Not to mention the indirect subsidy of Healthcare:
The Breakthrough Institute - Coal Kills 4 000 Times More People Per Unit of Energy than Nuclear

Explore the True Costs of Coal The Center for Health and the Global Environment
Air Pollution
M: Lung disease: Particulates and oxides of nitrogen and sulfur kill over 24,000 people annually, including 2,800 from lung cancer (2005). Heart disease: 38,200 non-fatal heart attacks annually.

E: Lives lost evaluated at $187.5 bn/yr.

Q: Air pollution also damages trees, crops and property.


There is a few others like Mercury, MTR, Abandoned Fields.....

This puts Coal at around €200bn a year...

Just like Oil no one wants to look at indirect costs....

And haven't even looked at Climate Change.

Then you must support nuclear power, right?

 

[Discombobulated]

We can do better than fossil fuels or nuclear, it's just a matter of how much money and resources we want to devote into developing it. Green energy has doubled in efficiency on average every five years and shows every indication of evolving even faster in the future. Fossil fuels and nuclear have no such potential.

See, this is the problem with libs. THey throw out a factoid like that and make assumptions.
The truth is that green energy is massively more expensive than traditional energy. It doesnt matter that it is gettig cheaper. It would need to get massively cheaper to be competitive. And there is no way for that to happen. Idiots assume present trends continue at the same rate. It ijust isnt so.
So idiots like Disconnected think we should spend massive amounts on unproven inefficient technology. That of course leaves less money to spend on things like defense, crime prevention, feeding hungry people, providing shelter or education. Because resources arent unlimited.

Yes I see your point professor: Why continue to research new technologies when we can rely on 19th century technology to meet the energy needs of the 21st century.

 

[The Rabbi]

We can do better than fossil fuels or nuclear, it's just a matter of how much money and resources we want to devote into developing it. Green energy has doubled in efficiency on average every five years and shows every indication of evolving even faster in the future. Fossil fuels and nuclear have no such potential.

See, this is the problem with libs. THey throw out a factoid like that and make assumptions.
The truth is that green energy is massively more expensive than traditional energy. It doesnt matter that it is gettig cheaper. It would need to get massively cheaper to be competitive. And there is no way for that to happen. Idiots assume present trends continue at the same rate. It ijust isnt so.
So idiots like Disconnected think we should spend massive amounts on unproven inefficient technology. That of course leaves less money to spend on things like defense, crime prevention, feeding hungry people, providing shelter or education. Because resources arent unlimited.

Yes I see your point professor: Why continue to research new technologies when we can rely on 19th century technology to meet the energy needs of the 21st century.

What does that even mean?
First off, you confuse subsidies with research grants. Not surprising given you can't tell your ass from a hole in the ground.
Second, do you think if gov't stops subsidizing green energy then all research will just go away? Didnt you post that oil companies themselves are investing in energy research?

 

[CowboyTed]

Coal gets all kinds of breaks in the tax code.

Coal also gets discounted royalty fees to mine federal lands, low interest loans, grants.

According to the Energy Information Administration, coal received $557 billion in subsidies in 2008.

See page xiii for the huge differences between the subsidies provided to fossil fuels versus renewables.

Not to mention the indirect subsidy of Healthcare:
The Breakthrough Institute - Coal Kills 4 000 Times More People Per Unit of Energy than Nuclear

Explore the True Costs of Coal The Center for Health and the Global Environment
Air Pollution
M: Lung disease: Particulates and oxides of nitrogen and sulfur kill over 24,000 people annually, including 2,800 from lung cancer (2005). Heart disease: 38,200 non-fatal heart attacks annually.

E: Lives lost evaluated at $187.5 bn/yr.

Q: Air pollution also damages trees, crops and property.


There is a few others like Mercury, MTR, Abandoned Fields.....

This puts Coal at around €200bn a year...

Just like Oil no one wants to look at indirect costs....

And haven't even looked at Climate Change.

Then you must support nuclear power, right?

I am open to the idea of investigating the newer forms of Nuclear power like MSR... They show great potential and the Technology has been around for a long while...
It is safe and the waste problem looks far more manageable...

Wind and Solar have a lot more potential as well...

 

[CowboyTed]

We can do better than fossil fuels or nuclear, it's just a matter of how much money and resources we want to devote into developing it. Green energy has doubled in efficiency on average every five years and shows every indication of evolving even faster in the future. Fossil fuels and nuclear have no such potential.

See, this is the problem with libs. THey throw out a factoid like that and make assumptions.
The truth is that green energy is massively more expensive than traditional energy. It doesnt matter that it is gettig cheaper. It would need to get massively cheaper to be competitive. And there is no way for that to happen. Idiots assume present trends continue at the same rate. It ijust isnt so.
So idiots like Disconnected think we should spend massive amounts on unproven inefficient technology. That of course leaves less money to spend on things like defense, crime prevention, feeding hungry people, providing shelter or education. Because resources arent unlimited.

Yes I see your point professor: Why continue to research new technologies when we can rely on 19th century technology to meet the energy needs of the 21st century.

I think you are talking about progress... Stop that kind of thing right now...

 

[Discombobulated]

We can do better than fossil fuels or nuclear, it's just a matter of how much money and resources we want to devote into developing it. Green energy has doubled in efficiency on average every five years and shows every indication of evolving even faster in the future. Fossil fuels and nuclear have no such potential.

See, this is the problem with libs. THey throw out a factoid like that and make assumptions.
The truth is that green energy is massively more expensive than traditional energy. It doesnt matter that it is gettig cheaper. It would need to get massively cheaper to be competitive. And there is no way for that to happen. Idiots assume present trends continue at the same rate. It ijust isnt so.
So idiots like Disconnected think we should spend massive amounts on unproven inefficient technology. That of course leaves less money to spend on things like defense, crime prevention, feeding hungry people, providing shelter or education. Because resources arent unlimited.

Yes I see your point professor: Why continue to research new technologies when we can rely on 19th century technology to meet the energy needs of the 21st century.

What does that even mean?
First off, you confuse subsidies with research grants. Not surprising given you can't tell your ass from a hole in the ground.
Second, do you think if gov't stops subsidizing green energy then all research will just go away? Didnt you post that oil companies themselves are investing in energy research?

You seem confused, I never mentioned anything about oil companies. But I can certainly understand why oil companies wouldn't want people to be energy independent.

 

[westwall]

Green energy has always been more expensive than traditional fuels. Which is why the industry wouldn't exist without extensive gov't subsidies. Those subsidies cost taxpayers real money and distort the market for energy. Wind power has been subsidized since the 1980s (maybe more)..
Especially now with oil prices plunging due to increased production (take that, you "we're running out of oil" milquetoasts) the difference between green and traditional energy is even more.
Time to pull the plug on this expensive waste of taxpayer resource.

No, you're wrong as usual. Instead of following your stupid fucking suggestions what we ought to do is devote massive resources into research and development of new energy technologies so that this country can lead the way into the 21st century instead of lagging behind with the energy solutions and technology of the 19th century.

I hate to break it to you but windmills have been around for oh several hundred years now and electric vehicles originated at the same time as ICE powered vehicles. Both of your technologies lost out to fossil fuel powered alternatives because the FF systems WORK BETTER and MORE EFFICIENTLY!

The morons pushing outdated tech is YOU!

 

[The Rabbi]

We can do better than fossil fuels or nuclear, it's just a matter of how much money and resources we want to devote into developing it. Green energy has doubled in efficiency on average every five years and shows every indication of evolving even faster in the future. Fossil fuels and nuclear have no such potential.

See, this is the problem with libs. THey throw out a factoid like that and make assumptions.
The truth is that green energy is massively more expensive than traditional energy. It doesnt matter that it is gettig cheaper. It would need to get massively cheaper to be competitive. And there is no way for that to happen. Idiots assume present trends continue at the same rate. It ijust isnt so.
So idiots like Disconnected think we should spend massive amounts on unproven inefficient technology. That of course leaves less money to spend on things like defense, crime prevention, feeding hungry people, providing shelter or education. Because resources arent unlimited.

Yes I see your point professor: Why continue to research new technologies when we can rely on 19th century technology to meet the energy needs of the 21st century.

What does that even mean?
First off, you confuse subsidies with research grants. Not surprising given you can't tell your ass from a hole in the ground.
Second, do you think if gov't stops subsidizing green energy then all research will just go away? Didnt you post that oil companies themselves are investing in energy research?

You seem confused, I never mentioned anything about oil companies. But I can certainly understand why oil companies wouldn't want people to be energy independent.

You seem unable to answer simple questions in a direct manner.
This is because you are both stupid and ill informed.

 

[The Rabbi]

Green energy has always been more expensive than traditional fuels. Which is why the industry wouldn't exist without extensive gov't subsidies. Those subsidies cost taxpayers real money and distort the market for energy. Wind power has been subsidized since the 1980s (maybe more)..
Especially now with oil prices plunging due to increased production (take that, you "we're running out of oil" milquetoasts) the difference between green and traditional energy is even more.
Time to pull the plug on this expensive waste of taxpayer resource.

No, you're wrong as usual. Instead of following your stupid fucking suggestions what we ought to do is devote massive resources into research and development of new energy technologies so that this country can lead the way into the 21st century instead of lagging behind with the energy solutions and technology of the 19th century.

I hate to break it to you but windmills have been around for oh several hundred years now and electric vehicles originated at the same time as ICE powered vehicles. Both of your technologies lost out to fossil fuel powered alternatives because the FF systems WORK BETTER and MORE EFFICIENTLY!

The morons pushing outdated tech is YOU!

It's true. The world was carbon free up until the 1800s. The world was also mired in poverty, disease, starvation, and other ills. Coincidence? I think not.

 

[Discombobulated]

We can do better than fossil fuels or nuclear, it's just a matter of how much money and resources we want to devote into developing it. Green energy has doubled in efficiency on average every five years and shows every indication of evolving even faster in the future. Fossil fuels and nuclear have no such potential.

See, this is the problem with libs. THey throw out a factoid like that and make assumptions.
The truth is that green energy is massively more expensive than traditional energy. It doesnt matter that it is gettig cheaper. It would need to get massively cheaper to be competitive. And there is no way for that to happen. Idiots assume present trends continue at the same rate. It ijust isnt so.
So idiots like Disconnected think we should spend massive amounts on unproven inefficient technology. That of course leaves less money to spend on things like defense, crime prevention, feeding hungry people, providing shelter or education. Because resources arent unlimited.

Yes I see your point professor: Why continue to research new technologies when we can rely on 19th century technology to meet the energy needs of the 21st century.

What does that even mean?
First off, you confuse subsidies with research grants. Not surprising given you can't tell your ass from a hole in the ground.
Second, do you think if gov't stops subsidizing green energy then all research will just go away? Didnt you post that oil companies themselves are investing in energy research?

You seem confused, I never mentioned anything about oil companies. But I can certainly understand why oil companies wouldn't want people to be energy independent.

You seem unable to answer simple questions in a direct manner.
This is because you are both stupid and ill informed.

Which questions are those professor? I didn't see you ask any.

 

[kaz]

You said it yourself they would have not gone there if wasn't for Oil... The support of Red Team or Blue Team is insignificant after that... Both parties are welded to the idea of oil. The Lobbyists have done a great job here.
But sorry Kaz no Oil, No invade. Therefore oil has to accept the tab.

No, because your claim was it was a "subsidy." You can't argue the hand waiving you did and peg it on specific companies as if they were handed money. If you want to claim subsidy, you have to pin it directly on them. You also even then can only pin the benefit they received on them to make it apples to apples, not the cost government incurred.

The reality is that radical Islam, general availability of oil to the world and not specifically the US much less those US companies is a huge factor. Yes, without oil we would not be there. Fact. However no, that doesn't mean you can leap over all the public attitudes, plethura of foreign policy implications and jump to such a specific claim.

We need people to rethink their assumptions about oil, terrorism, military policy and a whole host of other factors to change our middle east policy. And all of those are why we made the bad decisions we did to go in. Not just the specific interests of US oil companies.

As for fracking, strange one... It is not all the white knight it has been made out to be...
How long can the fracking revolution last

Bull, fracking is a greater white night than it has been made out to be. With the increasing yields we are getting out of fields, it's off the charts where it's headed. Stop listening to environnuts. They are full of shit

So put on the 'America: enduring lifestyle' project... Governments all over the world invest in tech

And it's a waste of money. It takes off when it's economically viable, which will happen when technology gets there. We are a long way from that.

I worked for years in the energy industry. What you are saying is just wrong. Our energy forecast is great in this country. It just isn't leading so socialism. Which is either your objective, the objective of the people leading you by the nose with their lies, or both. You can figure that part out yourself.

 

[The Rabbi]

See, this is the problem with libs. THey throw out a factoid like that and make assumptions.
The truth is that green energy is massively more expensive than traditional energy. It doesnt matter that it is gettig cheaper. It would need to get massively cheaper to be competitive. And there is no way for that to happen. Idiots assume present trends continue at the same rate. It ijust isnt so.
So idiots like Disconnected think we should spend massive amounts on unproven inefficient technology. That of course leaves less money to spend on things like defense, crime prevention, feeding hungry people, providing shelter or education. Because resources arent unlimited.

Yes I see your point professor: Why continue to research new technologies when we can rely on 19th century technology to meet the energy needs of the 21st century.

What does that even mean?
First off, you confuse subsidies with research grants. Not surprising given you can't tell your ass from a hole in the ground.
Second, do you think if gov't stops subsidizing green energy then all research will just go away? Didnt you post that oil companies themselves are investing in energy research?

You seem confused, I never mentioned anything about oil companies. But I can certainly understand why oil companies wouldn't want people to be energy independent.

You seem unable to answer simple questions in a direct manner.
This is because you are both stupid and ill informed.

Which questions are those professor? I didn't see you ask any.

Questions are usually indicated by a special mark that looks like this: ?
Just to make this easy I'll repost them.
What does that even mean?
do you think if gov't stops subsidizing green energy then all research will just go away?
Didnt you post that oil companies themselves are investing in energy research?