More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[Toddsterpatriot]

I can't find a single bit of reality or truth in your post.

Probably because, in your reality, we invest $0 in fossil fuels.

What did you think that Bush's "holy" wars were about? Spreading Christianity?

WTF are you whining about now?

 

[PMZ]

Probably because, in your reality, we invest $0 in fossil fuels.

What did you think that Bush's "holy" wars were about? Spreading Christianity?

WTF are you whining about now?

You lying about subsidies for the fossil fuels industry.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Another plus to wind and solar is the fact that we don't have to defend the global supply chain.

 

[HenryBHough]

Another plus to wind and solar is the fact that we don't have to defend the global supply chain.

Which might be true were The U.S. to end the ban on mining rare earths that now come only from China. But that's just not on until we have regime change.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What did you think that Bush's "holy" wars were about? Spreading Christianity?

WTF are you whining about now?

You lying about subsidies for the fossil fuels industry.

When you find some, let me know.

 

[PMZ]

WTF are you whining about now?

You lying about subsidies for the fossil fuels industry.

When you find some, let me know.

"But the American people might be on to something. In a poll conducted for NBC and the Wall Street Journal, three-quarters of respondents favored "eliminating tax credits for the oil and gas industries." Specifically, 47 percent said they found such cuts "totally acceptable" and 27 percent said they found it "mostly acceptable.""

"To some budget hawks cutting subsidies to mature and profitable energy industries is an inevitable part of any budget deficit solution. "Clearly most of the attention has been focused on non-security discretionary budget,” says Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense in Washington. “But even if we eliminated every dime of that, we would still have a trillion-dollar deficit. So these issues like subsidies for the oil and gas industry – and the tax code – are going to have to be tackled.""

"Finding and tallying federal energy subsidies, however, can be fiendishly difficult. Doug Koplow of the energy-consulting firm Earth Track in Cambridge, Mass., is considered one of the nation’s leading experts on the topic."

"He estimates that the US spent between $49 billion and $100 billion on energy subsidies in 2007 – numbers Mr. Koplow says are still accurate if adjusted for inflation. The handouts cover a broad range of activities, from federal loan guarantees and funding for energy research and development to special tax exemptions."

"Here is how the subsidies break down by category, adjusted for inflation, according to

Oil and gas: $41 billion

President Obama wants Congress to chop $3.6 billion in 2012 oil and gas tax breaks for a total of $46.2 billion over the next decade. Among Mr. Obama’s targets: a nearly century-old oil and gas industry tax deduction for the costs of preparing drill sites and a manufacturer's tax break granted the oil industry in 2004.

 

[PMZ]

You lying about subsidies for the fossil fuels industry.

When you find some, let me know.

"But the American people might be on to something. In a poll conducted for NBC and the Wall Street Journal, three-quarters of respondents favored "eliminating tax credits for the oil and gas industries." Specifically, 47 percent said they found such cuts "totally acceptable" and 27 percent said they found it "mostly acceptable.""

"To some budget hawks cutting subsidies to mature and profitable energy industries is an inevitable part of any budget deficit solution. "Clearly most of the attention has been focused on non-security discretionary budget,” says Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense in Washington. “But even if we eliminated every dime of that, we would still have a trillion-dollar deficit. So these issues like subsidies for the oil and gas industry – and the tax code – are going to have to be tackled.""

"Finding and tallying federal energy subsidies, however, can be fiendishly difficult. Doug Koplow of the energy-consulting firm Earth Track in Cambridge, Mass., is considered one of the nation’s leading experts on the topic."

"He estimates that the US spent between $49 billion and $100 billion on energy subsidies in 2007 – numbers Mr. Koplow says are still accurate if adjusted for inflation. The handouts cover a broad range of activities, from federal loan guarantees and funding for energy research and development to special tax exemptions."

"Here is how the subsidies break down by category, adjusted for inflation, according to Koplow."

Oil and gas: $41 billion

President Obama wants Congress to chop $3.6 billion in 2012 oil and gas tax breaks for a total of $46.2 billion over the next decade. Among Mr. Obama’s targets: a nearly century-old oil and gas industry tax deduction for the costs of preparing drill sites and a manufacturer's tax break granted the oil industry in 2004.

The number is significant, but still little more than one-tenth of the federal subsidies that oil and gas companies might receive over 10 years. Adjusted for inflation, they currently receive about $41 billion in annual subsidies annually. That amounts to more than half – 52 percent – of total benefits distributed to energy sectors by the federal government.

In second place among fossil fuels, the US coal industry reaps about $8 billion in subsidies annually – or about 10 percent of total federal largess. This includes tax breaks, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars on research into carbon capture and storage.

Those figures mean that subsidies to industries involved in fossil fuels total about $52 billion when adjusted for inflation – about two-thirds all federal energy subsidies.

Nuclear: $9 billion

Even though it's been decades since a new nuclear power plant began construction, nuclear power in the US gets about $9 billion annually in federal subsidies. This money is embedded in federal decommissioning and waste management policies, as well as research and development at the nation's national laboratories.

The Wall Street Journal survey showed that 57 percent of Americans favor chopping federal subsidies to build new nuclear power plants, a result that surprised many.

Obama's 2012 budget would let the Department of Energy triple to $58 billion the amount of loan guarantees it can grant to support the construction of nuclear power plants, nuclear watchdogs say. Taxpayers would pick up the tab for that $58 billion only if those guaranteed loans were defaulted on. But the Government Accountability Office and Congressional Budget Office have warned that is quite likely.

In a report last week entitled "Nuclear Power Still Not Viable Without Subsidies,” the Union of Concerned Scientist identified more than 30 government subsidies to the nuclear industry during the past five decades.

Ethanol: $6 billion

About $6 billion in tax credits and other favorable policies flow annually to support the ethanol industry. The amount has grown as ethanol use has increased. Credits for "advanced" cellulosic biofuels have not really kicked in yet.

Renewable fuels: $6 billion

The bulk of $6 billion in federal subsidies blow into the wind power industry, the leading renewable energy industry. Solar, biomass, geothermal and others are playing catch up.

"I suspect that the relative share of subsidies to renewables has increased more quickly in recent years than subsidies to fossil," Koplow writes in an e-mail.


From

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...-give-gas-and-oil-companies-41-billion-a-year

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When you find some, let me know.

"But the American people might be on to something. In a poll conducted for NBC and the Wall Street Journal, three-quarters of respondents favored "eliminating tax credits for the oil and gas industries." Specifically, 47 percent said they found such cuts "totally acceptable" and 27 percent said they found it "mostly acceptable.""

"To some budget hawks cutting subsidies to mature and profitable energy industries is an inevitable part of any budget deficit solution. "Clearly most of the attention has been focused on non-security discretionary budget,” says Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense in Washington. “But even if we eliminated every dime of that, we would still have a trillion-dollar deficit. So these issues like subsidies for the oil and gas industry – and the tax code – are going to have to be tackled.""

"Finding and tallying federal energy subsidies, however, can be fiendishly difficult. Doug Koplow of the energy-consulting firm Earth Track in Cambridge, Mass., is considered one of the nation’s leading experts on the topic."

"He estimates that the US spent between $49 billion and $100 billion on energy subsidies in 2007 – numbers Mr. Koplow says are still accurate if adjusted for inflation. The handouts cover a broad range of activities, from federal loan guarantees and funding for energy research and development to special tax exemptions."

"Here is how the subsidies break down by category, adjusted for inflation, according to Koplow."

Oil and gas: $41 billion

President Obama wants Congress to chop $3.6 billion in 2012 oil and gas tax breaks for a total of $46.2 billion over the next decade. Among Mr. Obama’s targets: a nearly century-old oil and gas industry tax deduction for the costs of preparing drill sites and a manufacturer's tax break granted the oil industry in 2004.

The number is significant, but still little more than one-tenth of the federal subsidies that oil and gas companies might receive over 10 years. Adjusted for inflation, they currently receive about $41 billion in annual subsidies annually. That amounts to more than half – 52 percent – of total benefits distributed to energy sectors by the federal government.

In second place among fossil fuels, the US coal industry reaps about $8 billion in subsidies annually – or about 10 percent of total federal largess. This includes tax breaks, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars on research into carbon capture and storage.

Those figures mean that subsidies to industries involved in fossil fuels total about $52 billion when adjusted for inflation – about two-thirds all federal energy subsidies.

Nuclear: $9 billion

Even though it's been decades since a new nuclear power plant began construction, nuclear power in the US gets about $9 billion annually in federal subsidies. This money is embedded in federal decommissioning and waste management policies, as well as research and development at the nation's national laboratories.

The Wall Street Journal survey showed that 57 percent of Americans favor chopping federal subsidies to build new nuclear power plants, a result that surprised many.

Obama's 2012 budget would let the Department of Energy triple to $58 billion the amount of loan guarantees it can grant to support the construction of nuclear power plants, nuclear watchdogs say. Taxpayers would pick up the tab for that $58 billion only if those guaranteed loans were defaulted on. But the Government Accountability Office and Congressional Budget Office have warned that is quite likely.

In a report last week entitled "Nuclear Power Still Not Viable Without Subsidies,” the Union of Concerned Scientist identified more than 30 government subsidies to the nuclear industry during the past five decades.

Ethanol: $6 billion

About $6 billion in tax credits and other favorable policies flow annually to support the ethanol industry. The amount has grown as ethanol use has increased. Credits for "advanced" cellulosic biofuels have not really kicked in yet.

Renewable fuels: $6 billion

The bulk of $6 billion in federal subsidies blow into the wind power industry, the leading renewable energy industry. Solar, biomass, geothermal and others are playing catch up.

"I suspect that the relative share of subsidies to renewables has increased more quickly in recent years than subsidies to fossil," Koplow writes in an e-mail.


From

Budget hawks: Does US need to give gas and oil companies $41 billion a year? - CSMonitor.com

Doug Koplow of the energy-consulting firm Earth Track in Cambridge, Mass., is considered one of the nation’s leading experts on the topic."

"He estimates that the US spent between $49 billion and $100 billion on energy subsidies in 2007

He's an expert, and he can't get any closer than that? LOL!

Among Mr. Obama’s targets: a nearly century-old oil and gas industry tax deduction for the costs of preparing drill sites

Sounds like a business expense, all businesses get to deduct their expenses.

and a manufacturer's tax break granted the oil industry in 2004.

Specifics would be nice.

the US coal industry reaps about $8 billion in subsidies annually – or about 10 percent of total federal largess. This includes tax breaks, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars on research into carbon capture and storage.

Tax breaks? Like what?
As far as the green idiocy of CO2 capture, I agree, we should end it now.

About $6 billion in tax credits and other favorable policies flow annually to support the ethanol industry.

Yes, green ethanol idiocy should end.

The bulk of $6 billion in federal subsidies blow into the wind power industry, the leading renewable energy industry.

Ditto.

 

[PMZ]

When you find some, let me know.

"But the American people might be on to something. In a poll conducted for NBC and the Wall Street Journal, three-quarters of respondents favored "eliminating tax credits for the oil and gas industries." Specifically, 47 percent said they found such cuts "totally acceptable" and 27 percent said they found it "mostly acceptable.""

"To some budget hawks cutting subsidies to mature and profitable energy industries is an inevitable part of any budget deficit solution. "Clearly most of the attention has been focused on non-security discretionary budget,” says Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense in Washington. “But even if we eliminated every dime of that, we would still have a trillion-dollar deficit. So these issues like subsidies for the oil and gas industry – and the tax code – are going to have to be tackled.""

"Finding and tallying federal energy subsidies, however, can be fiendishly difficult. Doug Koplow of the energy-consulting firm Earth Track in Cambridge, Mass., is considered one of the nation’s leading experts on the topic."

"He estimates that the US spent between $49 billion and $100 billion on energy subsidies in 2007 – numbers Mr. Koplow says are still accurate if adjusted for inflation. The handouts cover a broad range of activities, from federal loan guarantees and funding for energy research and development to special tax exemptions."

"Here is how the subsidies break down by category, adjusted for inflation, according to Koplow."

Oil and gas: $41 billion

President Obama wants Congress to chop $3.6 billion in 2012 oil and gas tax breaks for a total of $46.2 billion over the next decade. Among Mr. Obama’s targets: a nearly century-old oil and gas industry tax deduction for the costs of preparing drill sites and a manufacturer's tax break granted the oil industry in 2004.

The number is significant, but still little more than one-tenth of the federal subsidies that oil and gas companies might receive over 10 years. Adjusted for inflation, they currently receive about $41 billion in annual subsidies annually. That amounts to more than half – 52 percent – of total benefits distributed to energy sectors by the federal government.

In second place among fossil fuels, the US coal industry reaps about $8 billion in subsidies annually – or about 10 percent of total federal largess. This includes tax breaks, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars on research into carbon capture and storage.

Those figures mean that subsidies to industries involved in fossil fuels total about $52 billion when adjusted for inflation – about two-thirds all federal energy subsidies.

Nuclear: $9 billion

Even though it's been decades since a new nuclear power plant began construction, nuclear power in the US gets about $9 billion annually in federal subsidies. This money is embedded in federal decommissioning and waste management policies, as well as research and development at the nation's national laboratories.

The Wall Street Journal survey showed that 57 percent of Americans favor chopping federal subsidies to build new nuclear power plants, a result that surprised many.

Obama's 2012 budget would let the Department of Energy triple to $58 billion the amount of loan guarantees it can grant to support the construction of nuclear power plants, nuclear watchdogs say. Taxpayers would pick up the tab for that $58 billion only if those guaranteed loans were defaulted on. But the Government Accountability Office and Congressional Budget Office have warned that is quite likely.

In a report last week entitled "Nuclear Power Still Not Viable Without Subsidies,” the Union of Concerned Scientist identified more than 30 government subsidies to the nuclear industry during the past five decades.

Ethanol: $6 billion

About $6 billion in tax credits and other favorable policies flow annually to support the ethanol industry. The amount has grown as ethanol use has increased. Credits for "advanced" cellulosic biofuels have not really kicked in yet.

Renewable fuels: $6 billion

The bulk of $6 billion in federal subsidies blow into the wind power industry, the leading renewable energy industry. Solar, biomass, geothermal and others are playing catch up.

"I suspect that the relative share of subsidies to renewables has increased more quickly in recent years than subsidies to fossil," Koplow writes in an e-mail.


From

Budget hawks: Does US need to give gas and oil companies $41 billion a year? - CSMonitor.com

Doug Koplow of the energy-consulting firm Earth Track in Cambridge, Mass., is considered one of the nation’s leading experts on the topic."

"He estimates that the US spent between $49 billion and $100 billion on energy subsidies in 2007

He's an expert, and he can't get any closer than that? LOL!

Among Mr. Obama’s targets: a nearly century-old oil and gas industry tax deduction for the costs of preparing drill sites

Sounds like a business expense, all businesses get to deduct their expenses.

and a manufacturer's tax break granted the oil industry in 2004.

Specifics would be nice.

the US coal industry reaps about $8 billion in subsidies annually – or about 10 percent of total federal largess. This includes tax breaks, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars on research into carbon capture and storage.

Tax breaks? Like what?
As far as the green idiocy of CO2 capture, I agree, we should end it now.

About $6 billion in tax credits and other favorable policies flow annually to support the ethanol industry.

Yes, green ethanol idiocy should end.

The bulk of $6 billion in federal subsidies blow into the wind power industry, the leading renewable energy industry.

Ditto.

Why should obsolete energy sources in their dying years be subsidized in any way?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"But the American people might be on to something. In a poll conducted for NBC and the Wall Street Journal, three-quarters of respondents favored "eliminating tax credits for the oil and gas industries." Specifically, 47 percent said they found such cuts "totally acceptable" and 27 percent said they found it "mostly acceptable.""

"To some budget hawks cutting subsidies to mature and profitable energy industries is an inevitable part of any budget deficit solution. "Clearly most of the attention has been focused on non-security discretionary budget,” says Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense in Washington. “But even if we eliminated every dime of that, we would still have a trillion-dollar deficit. So these issues like subsidies for the oil and gas industry – and the tax code – are going to have to be tackled.""

"Finding and tallying federal energy subsidies, however, can be fiendishly difficult. Doug Koplow of the energy-consulting firm Earth Track in Cambridge, Mass., is considered one of the nation’s leading experts on the topic."

"He estimates that the US spent between $49 billion and $100 billion on energy subsidies in 2007 – numbers Mr. Koplow says are still accurate if adjusted for inflation. The handouts cover a broad range of activities, from federal loan guarantees and funding for energy research and development to special tax exemptions."

"Here is how the subsidies break down by category, adjusted for inflation, according to Koplow."

Oil and gas: $41 billion

President Obama wants Congress to chop $3.6 billion in 2012 oil and gas tax breaks for a total of $46.2 billion over the next decade. Among Mr. Obama’s targets: a nearly century-old oil and gas industry tax deduction for the costs of preparing drill sites and a manufacturer's tax break granted the oil industry in 2004.

The number is significant, but still little more than one-tenth of the federal subsidies that oil and gas companies might receive over 10 years. Adjusted for inflation, they currently receive about $41 billion in annual subsidies annually. That amounts to more than half – 52 percent – of total benefits distributed to energy sectors by the federal government.

In second place among fossil fuels, the US coal industry reaps about $8 billion in subsidies annually – or about 10 percent of total federal largess. This includes tax breaks, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars on research into carbon capture and storage.

Those figures mean that subsidies to industries involved in fossil fuels total about $52 billion when adjusted for inflation – about two-thirds all federal energy subsidies.

Nuclear: $9 billion

Even though it's been decades since a new nuclear power plant began construction, nuclear power in the US gets about $9 billion annually in federal subsidies. This money is embedded in federal decommissioning and waste management policies, as well as research and development at the nation's national laboratories.

The Wall Street Journal survey showed that 57 percent of Americans favor chopping federal subsidies to build new nuclear power plants, a result that surprised many.

Obama's 2012 budget would let the Department of Energy triple to $58 billion the amount of loan guarantees it can grant to support the construction of nuclear power plants, nuclear watchdogs say. Taxpayers would pick up the tab for that $58 billion only if those guaranteed loans were defaulted on. But the Government Accountability Office and Congressional Budget Office have warned that is quite likely.

In a report last week entitled "Nuclear Power Still Not Viable Without Subsidies,” the Union of Concerned Scientist identified more than 30 government subsidies to the nuclear industry during the past five decades.

Ethanol: $6 billion

About $6 billion in tax credits and other favorable policies flow annually to support the ethanol industry. The amount has grown as ethanol use has increased. Credits for "advanced" cellulosic biofuels have not really kicked in yet.

Renewable fuels: $6 billion

The bulk of $6 billion in federal subsidies blow into the wind power industry, the leading renewable energy industry. Solar, biomass, geothermal and others are playing catch up.

"I suspect that the relative share of subsidies to renewables has increased more quickly in recent years than subsidies to fossil," Koplow writes in an e-mail.


From

Budget hawks: Does US need to give gas and oil companies $41 billion a year? - CSMonitor.com

Doug Koplow of the energy-consulting firm Earth Track in Cambridge, Mass., is considered one of the nation’s leading experts on the topic."

"He estimates that the US spent between $49 billion and $100 billion on energy subsidies in 2007

He's an expert, and he can't get any closer than that? LOL!

Among Mr. Obama’s targets: a nearly century-old oil and gas industry tax deduction for the costs of preparing drill sites

Sounds like a business expense, all businesses get to deduct their expenses.

and a manufacturer's tax break granted the oil industry in 2004.

Specifics would be nice.

the US coal industry reaps about $8 billion in subsidies annually – or about 10 percent of total federal largess. This includes tax breaks, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars on research into carbon capture and storage.

Tax breaks? Like what?
As far as the green idiocy of CO2 capture, I agree, we should end it now.

About $6 billion in tax credits and other favorable policies flow annually to support the ethanol industry.

Yes, green ethanol idiocy should end.

The bulk of $6 billion in federal subsidies blow into the wind power industry, the leading renewable energy industry.

Ditto.

Why should obsolete energy sources in their dying years be subsidized in any way?

I agree, end subsidies to poor energy sources, like wind and ethanol.

Let me know if you ever find any fossil fuel subsidies.

 

[PMZ]

Doug Koplow of the energy-consulting firm Earth Track in Cambridge, Mass., is considered one of the nation’s leading experts on the topic."

"He estimates that the US spent between $49 billion and $100 billion on energy subsidies in 2007

He's an expert, and he can't get any closer than that? LOL!

Among Mr. Obama’s targets: a nearly century-old oil and gas industry tax deduction for the costs of preparing drill sites

Sounds like a business expense, all businesses get to deduct their expenses.

and a manufacturer's tax break granted the oil industry in 2004.

Specifics would be nice.

the US coal industry reaps about $8 billion in subsidies annually – or about 10 percent of total federal largess. This includes tax breaks, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars on research into carbon capture and storage.

Tax breaks? Like what?
As far as the green idiocy of CO2 capture, I agree, we should end it now.

About $6 billion in tax credits and other favorable policies flow annually to support the ethanol industry.

Yes, green ethanol idiocy should end.

The bulk of $6 billion in federal subsidies blow into the wind power industry, the leading renewable energy industry.

Ditto.

Why should obsolete energy sources in their dying years be subsidized in any way?

I agree, end subsidies to poor energy sources, like wind and ethanol.

Let me know if you ever find any fossil fuel subsidies.

I did. But you'll never know that through closed eyes.

 

[TRFjr]

"But the American people might be on to something. In a poll conducted for NBC and the Wall Street Journal, three-quarters of respondents favored "eliminating tax credits for the oil and gas industries." Specifically, 47 percent said they found such cuts "totally acceptable" and 27 percent said they found it "mostly acceptable.""

"To some budget hawks cutting subsidies to mature and profitable energy industries is an inevitable part of any budget deficit solution. "Clearly most of the attention has been focused on non-security discretionary budget,” says Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense in Washington. “But even if we eliminated every dime of that, we would still have a trillion-dollar deficit. So these issues like subsidies for the oil and gas industry – and the tax code – are going to have to be tackled.""

"Finding and tallying federal energy subsidies, however, can be fiendishly difficult. Doug Koplow of the energy-consulting firm Earth Track in Cambridge, Mass., is considered one of the nation’s leading experts on the topic."

"He estimates that the US spent between $49 billion and $100 billion on energy subsidies in 2007 – numbers Mr. Koplow says are still accurate if adjusted for inflation. The handouts cover a broad range of activities, from federal loan guarantees and funding for energy research and development to special tax exemptions."

"Here is how the subsidies break down by category, adjusted for inflation, according to Koplow."

Oil and gas: $41 billion

President Obama wants Congress to chop $3.6 billion in 2012 oil and gas tax breaks for a total of $46.2 billion over the next decade. Among Mr. Obama’s targets: a nearly century-old oil and gas industry tax deduction for the costs of preparing drill sites and a manufacturer's tax break granted the oil industry in 2004.

The number is significant, but still little more than one-tenth of the federal subsidies that oil and gas companies might receive over 10 years. Adjusted for inflation, they currently receive about $41 billion in annual subsidies annually. That amounts to more than half – 52 percent – of total benefits distributed to energy sectors by the federal government.

In second place among fossil fuels, the US coal industry reaps about $8 billion in subsidies annually – or about 10 percent of total federal largess. This includes tax breaks, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars on research into carbon capture and storage.

Those figures mean that subsidies to industries involved in fossil fuels total about $52 billion when adjusted for inflation – about two-thirds all federal energy subsidies.

Nuclear: $9 billion

Even though it's been decades since a new nuclear power plant began construction, nuclear power in the US gets about $9 billion annually in federal subsidies. This money is embedded in federal decommissioning and waste management policies, as well as research and development at the nation's national laboratories.

The Wall Street Journal survey showed that 57 percent of Americans favor chopping federal subsidies to build new nuclear power plants, a result that surprised many.

Obama's 2012 budget would let the Department of Energy triple to $58 billion the amount of loan guarantees it can grant to support the construction of nuclear power plants, nuclear watchdogs say. Taxpayers would pick up the tab for that $58 billion only if those guaranteed loans were defaulted on. But the Government Accountability Office and Congressional Budget Office have warned that is quite likely.

In a report last week entitled "Nuclear Power Still Not Viable Without Subsidies,” the Union of Concerned Scientist identified more than 30 government subsidies to the nuclear industry during the past five decades.

Ethanol: $6 billion

About $6 billion in tax credits and other favorable policies flow annually to support the ethanol industry. The amount has grown as ethanol use has increased. Credits for "advanced" cellulosic biofuels have not really kicked in yet.

Renewable fuels: $6 billion

The bulk of $6 billion in federal subsidies blow into the wind power industry, the leading renewable energy industry. Solar, biomass, geothermal and others are playing catch up.

"I suspect that the relative share of subsidies to renewables has increased more quickly in recent years than subsidies to fossil," Koplow writes in an e-mail.


From

Budget hawks: Does US need to give gas and oil companies $41 billion a year? - CSMonitor.com

Doug Koplow of the energy-consulting firm Earth Track in Cambridge, Mass., is considered one of the nation’s leading experts on the topic."

"He estimates that the US spent between $49 billion and $100 billion on energy subsidies in 2007

He's an expert, and he can't get any closer than that? LOL!

Among Mr. Obama’s targets: a nearly century-old oil and gas industry tax deduction for the costs of preparing drill sites

Sounds like a business expense, all businesses get to deduct their expenses.

and a manufacturer's tax break granted the oil industry in 2004.

Specifics would be nice.

the US coal industry reaps about $8 billion in subsidies annually – or about 10 percent of total federal largess. This includes tax breaks, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars on research into carbon capture and storage.

Tax breaks? Like what?
As far as the green idiocy of CO2 capture, I agree, we should end it now.

About $6 billion in tax credits and other favorable policies flow annually to support the ethanol industry.

Yes, green ethanol idiocy should end.

The bulk of $6 billion in federal subsidies blow into the wind power industry, the leading renewable energy industry.

Ditto.

Why should obsolete energy sources in their dying years be subsidized in any way?

because they work and are cheaper then the alternative

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why should obsolete energy sources in their dying years be subsidized in any way?

I agree, end subsidies to poor energy sources, like wind and ethanol.

Let me know if you ever find any fossil fuel subsidies.

I did. But you'll never know that through closed eyes.

No you didn't.

Maybe you don't know what the word subsidy means?

Look it up and try again.

 

[PMZ]

Doug Koplow of the energy-consulting firm Earth Track in Cambridge, Mass., is considered one of the nation’s leading experts on the topic."

"He estimates that the US spent between $49 billion and $100 billion on energy subsidies in 2007

He's an expert, and he can't get any closer than that? LOL!

Among Mr. Obama’s targets: a nearly century-old oil and gas industry tax deduction for the costs of preparing drill sites

Sounds like a business expense, all businesses get to deduct their expenses.

and a manufacturer's tax break granted the oil industry in 2004.

Specifics would be nice.

the US coal industry reaps about $8 billion in subsidies annually – or about 10 percent of total federal largess. This includes tax breaks, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars on research into carbon capture and storage.

Tax breaks? Like what?
As far as the green idiocy of CO2 capture, I agree, we should end it now.

About $6 billion in tax credits and other favorable policies flow annually to support the ethanol industry.

Yes, green ethanol idiocy should end.

The bulk of $6 billion in federal subsidies blow into the wind power industry, the leading renewable energy industry.

Ditto.

Why should obsolete energy sources in their dying years be subsidized in any way?

because they work and are cheaper then the alternative

There are many things that "because they work and are cheaper then the alternative". Should they all be subsidized?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Skeptics would you post a global data set graph of temperature the last 1,000 years? I'd like to see what you think.

 

[Kosh]

And yet the AGW church members can not post the datasets and source code that link CO2 to driving the climate.

 

[PMZ]

I agree, end subsidies to poor energy sources, like wind and ethanol.

Let me know if you ever find any fossil fuel subsidies.

I did. But you'll never know that through closed eyes.

No you didn't.

Maybe you don't know what the word subsidy means?

Look it up and try again.

http://onswipe.investopedia.com/investopedia/#!/entry/,5228a8f1da27f5d9d0178610

You try again.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I did. But you'll never know that through closed eyes.

No you didn't.

Maybe you don't know what the word subsidy means?

Look it up and try again.

Onswipe

You try again.

Was there supposed to be some support for your claims there?

 

[westwall]

Skeptics would you post a global data set graph of temperature the last 1,000 years? I'd like to see what you think.

Here you go....

Temperature reconstructions

Tree-ring study proves that climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is in the modern industrial age | Mail Online

 

[PMZ]

No you didn't.

Maybe you don't know what the word subsidy means?

Look it up and try again.

Onswipe

You try again.

Was there supposed to be some support for your claims there?

Apparently you don't have your reading glasses on.

It was a definition of subsidy that encompasses all of the things that you claimed were not subsidies.