It's Time To Sequester Green Energy Subsidies, Not Mythical Oil And Gas Tax Breaks

Jul 7, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Forbes.com

One of the big applause lines in President Obama's recent Georgetown "climate action plan" pitch declaring an all-out EPA war on coal and it's fossil cousins said: "And because billions of your tax dollars continue to still subsidize some of the most profitable corporations in the history of the world, my budget once again calls for Congress to end ... (more)

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 17 of17
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jul 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Is Forbes becoming the book of fairy tales for the modern age?

The oil industry wins BIG on subsidies compared to renewable power, do NOT need them (they have massive profits) and they are well documented.

http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
"Each year, Congress provides between $10B and $52B to the oil, gas and coal industry"

Time to more Forbes to the 'fiction' aisle.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jul 7, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

1

I went to your reference, sounds like the Forbes article was right.

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jul 7, 2013
 

Judged:

5

4

4

LHMF; I looked for quite a while at your linked site and could not find one statement regarding what the subsidies are claimed to be. There is a lot of BS about whether big oil SHOULD have a subsidy, but no definition anywhere of what the actual subsidy is. This suggests that this whole thing is basically BS. As FF says, sounds like Forbes is right.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jul 8, 2013
 
Apparently trolls cannot read. Or do research. Lets call it the "three monkeys effect". I was just pointing out how WELL KNOWN they were.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Apparently trolls cannot read. Or do research. Lets call it the "three monkeys effect". I was just pointing out how WELL KNOWN they were.
Apparently you didn't read your reference.
fatbacks x

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jul 8, 2013
 
Should sequester all aid to the middle east along with the wars for oil and heroin. Also interest payments to redchina our mommy country, which might cut down on those tv commercials where you get two pieces of chicom crap for 19.95 plus ship and handling. Let ups and fed x find something to do, besides bashing the s--t outa the two pices of your cherished red shiney crap.

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

3

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Apparently trolls cannot read. Or do research. Lets call it the "three monkeys effect". I was just pointing out how WELL KNOWN they were.
If they are so "well known", what are they? Surely you know these well known subsidies. Be specific please.

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

InSIDeR;
MoreHypeLessFact was condemning nuclear power due to "subsidies" that it (he, she?) refuses to specify. So thank you for your list of ethanol fuel subsidies, but that doesn't answer my question to it concerning invented nuclear subsidies.

The Soviet Union has a habit of accusing other countries of doing dastardly deeds that it was doing at that same time. I think MoreHypeLessFact has taken a page from their playbook regarding subsidies. Accuse nuclear of getting them while ignoring massive subsidies for the unreliables.

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

InSIDeR,
OOPS: Sorry,
This time it WAS regarding oil. MHLF and others and I have been having the "subsidies for nuclear" issue for so long I assumed...

InSIDeR, again, thank you. I will read your links to see what the claimed subsidies are.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Kiteman. You should also consider WHY give subsidies to a highly profitable and extremely polluting industry with resources that are gettting MORE and MORE expensive instead of to clean energy initiatives that can provide long term energy with a little investment.

We promoted coal when we pumped billions into the Rural Electification bill (with a lot of benefits). But it is no longer FOSSIL FUEL TIME. It is insane to subsidize them ONE DOLLAR. Whether the accounting comes to $10B or $52B is beside the point.

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
But it is no longer FOSSIL FUEL TIME. It is insane to subsidize them ONE DOLLAR. Whether the accounting comes to $10B or $52B is beside the point.
Personally, I would prefer that NO form of energy be subsidized and may the best form win.(LFTR, by the way) ;)
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Jul 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text> Personally, I would prefer that NO form of energy be subsidized and may the best form win.(LFTR, by the way) ;)
That would be like saying that the Rural Electrification Bill was wrong. It worked. The point is to have subsidies that HELP the country, not that fatten pockets.

Pesonally I would suggest that ANY subsidy have a limited lifetime with a yearly decrease, which could not be changed. The real problem is ENTRENCHED subsidies. I.e. ones that just change the markets without fixing the problems.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Jul 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fossil fuel currently enjoys more subsidies than renewable energy, for one simple reason, it's still the major energy provider.

Renewable subsidies will "fatten pocket," just different pockets.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Jul 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Earthling-1 wrote:
Fossil fuel currently enjoys more subsidies than renewable energy, for one simple reason,
It can afford more lobbyists with all the money it gets from the public purse.
Earthling-1 wrote:
Renewable subsidies will "fatten pocket," just different pockets.
Hardly. The stimulus just offsets the 'barriers to entry' to put clean green energy on a similar footing. Fossil fuels are getting more expensive as we use up the 'low hanging fruit' and are not replaceable. Nor can we afford to use them all anyway due to GHGs.

Green energies, on the other hand, have no set lifetime, and are getting cheaper year by year.

Still clueless, are you? Welcome back. We need a fool to illustrate the stupidity of the denialist camp. You'll do fine.

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Jul 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Earthling-1,
I figure it is pointless to argue with LesFactMoreHype cuz it is "right" and no facts will cause it to change its mind.

Subsidies for unreliable sources = good,
subsidies for reliable sources = bad.
End of its story.

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Jul 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be like saying that the Rural Electrification Bill was wrong. It worked. The point is to have subsidies that HELP the country, not that fatten pockets.
Pesonally I would suggest that ANY subsidy have a limited lifetime with a yearly decrease, which could not be changed. The real problem is ENTRENCHED subsidies. I.e. ones that just change the markets without fixing the problems.
Well, actually, yes I think it was a grave mistake. It made for a massive, centralized electrical power system instead of local or even individual systems. Without it, maybe the W&S sources would be the primary sources now rather than the GW size behemoths. I would figure you'd like that.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Jul 11, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

KitemanSA wrote:
Earthling-1,
I figure it is pointless to argue with LesFactMoreHype cuz it is "right" and no facts will cause it to change its mind.
You haven't seen a tenth of it.
KitemanSA wrote:
Subsidies for unreliable sources = good,
subsidies for reliable sources = bad.
End of its story.
Just for fun, a few of LessFact aka Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty's past comments, unbelievable as some of them may be:

Forty is spelled with a U
Etymology is not a serious subject
Deforestations is a consequence of AGW
Epistemologists compile dictionaries
Epystemologists compile dictionaries
Samuel Johnson was an American
Ice calving is restricted by size
Spelt is only an ancient grain
The equator doesn't have "season"
There isn't a 'right or wrong' way of spelling
Cars can be charged with road collisions
Vikings didn't know how to live in a warmer Greenland
How much heat you are transferring at one time has NO relationship to the temperature of any objects
Alberta is a country
New Moore island is in the MOUTH of the several rivers
Insects and plants don't qualify as species
Enercon install offshore wind generators
Scientific laws are not science
Climate and weather are not 'linked'
Predictions are for astrologers
Ethanol is a very workable and effective solution
AGW is just the warming of the global average surface temperature due to GHGs
AGW is the global average
The science says that human emissions are responsible for MOST of AGW, which has SOME unknown but significant part of climate change
The IPCC report of 2001 and 2007 clearly show that GHGs are by far the largest contributor but not the exclusive contributor to AGW
America has two political parties
Climate and weather are not 'linked'
'nondenier' is a real word
Fruiting plants are especially chosen by bees for, "polination"
We acted on CFCs in the 70s
CO2 is not vital for life on planet Earth
CO2 causes, "thermal pollution"
The Alps are only in Europe
CO2 is a 'thermal pollutant'
CO2 levels are rising faster than the temperature can react
AGW is comparable to the Holocaust
Please show this 'ararmist club' and membership list
And theory is the endpoint of science
The 'unproven' stuff is 'hypothesis'
The fact that all the scientific authorities confirm AGW as theory means that it IS science fact as defined
There are no 'laws of science'
Scientific laws are NOT science
the science isn't going to change
While the science doesn't change rapidly it does change
And nowhere is there 'skepticism' of the science
Experiment is NOT science
Experiment can only give you data. it cannot PROVE anything

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 17 of17
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Environmental Law Discussions

Search the Environmental Law Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Waterless urinals get the flush (Feb '10) Wed Gixxer 51
Senator Harry Reid: the cattle rustler Apr 13 Cat74 7
Carrollton Free Press Standard Letters to the E... Apr 11 Hermione 1
Winnebago ethanol plant fined $100,000 (Aug '09) Apr 6 Fuel-Testers 10
Forbes lists Bridgeport as fourth-dirtiest city... (Dec '12) Apr 4 BPT 26
Global warming comment sets off tempest at IDEM Apr 3 litesong 1
A New Type of Eco-Protest: Art Mar 28 Abishai100 1
•••
•••
•••
•••