Get the Energy Sector off the Dole

Jan 4, 2011 Full story: The Washington Monthly 23

After all, he's up against a House Republican majority rife with members who openly deny that humans contribute to global warming, as well as members of his own party who are beholden to domestic fossil fuel industries.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Northie

Spokane, WA

#1 Jan 5, 2011
The oil, coal and gas industries not only enjoy huge subsidies from every level of government now, but they want us to mortgage the future habitability of Earth for their benefit as well.

And why, exactly, is the US taxpayer spending two trillion dollars to occupy other countries again? It sure as hell isn't to catch Osama bin Laden, who's long gone to Pakistan or Yemen.

Face it folks: it's now you or the energy industry, and that industry is fighting to win.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#2 Jan 5, 2011
Norfie, what are you going to replace these industries with?
Have patience, Rome wasn't built in a day.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#3 Jan 6, 2011
Northie wrote:
The oil, coal and gas industries not only enjoy huge subsidies from every level of government now, but they want us to mortgage the future habitability of Earth for their benefit as well.
And why, exactly, is the US taxpayer spending two trillion dollars to occupy other countries again? It sure as hell isn't to catch Osama bin Laden, who's long gone to Pakistan or Yemen.
Face it folks: it's now you or the energy industry, and that industry is fighting to win.
But nothing like green energy now enjoys. SO, go ahead and cut all energy subsities and watch wind, solar, and all the rest with the exception of nuclear and hydro dry up and die.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#4 Jan 6, 2011
A third of the populace is screaming to prevent Rome from being built at all.
INTEK2

United States

#5 Jan 6, 2011
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
But nothing like green energy now enjoys. SO, go ahead and cut all energy subsities and watch wind, solar, and all the rest with the exception of nuclear and hydro dry up and die.
If "green" energy got the breaks the oil and coal industry received,we would all be using it now. Especially since the oil companies pay little to no taxes on their profits . They make billions and are not accountable to anyone.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#6 Jan 7, 2011
INTEK2 wrote:
If "green" energy got the breaks the oil and coal industry received,we would all be using it now.
Don't be silly, there isn't enough viable 'green energy' to replace fossil fuelled energy.
Cousin Jethro

Winter Garden, FL

#7 Jan 7, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>Don't be silly, there isn't enough viable 'green energy' to replace fossil fuelled energy.
Incorrect: roughly 2/3rds the physical universe is hydrogen, go figure. Enough solar energy hits the earth each day to power life as we evolved within it; your thought power seems pretty dim though and could use a boost -- how about some moonbeams from tina?

Oh, and get big oil to cut their cash subsidies to crank anti-science deniers, too

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#8 Jan 7, 2011
Dreamers dream of endless cheap energy and although it may be there, just waiting to be tapped, mankind hasn't yet quite managed to harness it.
Given time, he will, but not just yet.
To dreamers, I say, dream on, suckers, you were born too early, too late or just born without the savvy to help.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#9 Jan 7, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
Dreamers dream of endless cheap energy and although it may be there, just waiting to be tapped, mankind hasn't yet quite managed to harness it.
Given time, he will, but not just yet.
To dreamers, I say, dream on, suckers, you were born too early, too late or just born without the savvy to help.
You not only deny the opinions of every major scientific body studying the climate, but now you deny the findings of every credible economic group that has studied the cost of energy transformation?

McKinsey, MunichRE, The Stern Group and many others have analyzed this for years now, and all conclude that the cost of getting off carbon fuels is tiny--between 0.4% and 2% of GDP--while the cost of business as usual could very likely crash the entire world economy for generations.

Even a diehard curmudgeon like you must have enough business sense to understand a cost/benefit analysis like that.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#10 Jan 7, 2011
I'm not denying anyone's opinions or findings, opinions and findings mean Jack if nothing physical is done.
It doesn't really matter who analyses what or how much it might cost, at the end of the day, it's what's available that counts and currently, there isn't enough green energy to satisfy demand.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#11 Jan 7, 2011
INTEK2 wrote:
<quoted text>If "green" energy got the breaks the oil and coal industry received,we would all be using it now. Especially since the oil companies pay little to no taxes on their profits . They make billions and are not accountable to anyone.
But they actually receive better breaks than oil and coal. Renewable energy recives far mor per kwh than fossil fuels and still ends up costing the consumer more. While fossil fuels receive only a paltry 0.008 cents per kwh, reneables receive 0.05 cents per kwh. Yet even with that infusion of money from the goverment wind only manages to hold even in some cases with fossil fuel geelectrical prices and solar still cost an extra 0.18 cents extra per kwh.

Add on top of it that while oil companies have to play with the rules to get out of paying most of thier taxes the renewable crowd isn't paying a single cent. Which means they are receiving far more than they are paying in taxes.

So how about this. End both subsities and taxes on all forms of energy production and let the market call the winner. Of course I doubt you want to do that considering that we both really know who the winner would be.
Cousin Jethro

Winter Garden, FL

#12 Jan 7, 2011
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
But they actually receive better breaks than oil and coal. Renewable energy recives far mor per kwh than fossil fuels and still ends up costing the consumer more. While fossil fuels receive only a paltry 0.008 cents per kwh, reneables receive 0.05 cents per kwh. Yet even with that infusion of money from the goverment wind only manages to hold even in some cases with fossil fuel geelectrical prices and solar still cost an extra 0.18 cents extra per kwh.
Add on top of it that while oil companies have to play with the rules to get out of paying most of thier taxes the renewable crowd isn't paying a single cent. Which means they are receiving far more than they are paying in taxes.
So how about this. End both subsities and taxes on all forms of energy production and let the market call the winner. Of course I doubt you want to do that considering that we both really know who the winner would be.
Better yet, end the subsidies on those forms of energy causing harm to the environment and increase the subsidies to those companies finding/researching the least harmful forms -- that seems a decent Stuart Mill solution: as logical we cannot expect it from any present earth administration

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#13 Jan 7, 2011
Cousin Jethro wrote:
<quoted text>
Better yet, end the subsidies on those forms of energy causing harm to the environment and increase the subsidies to those companies finding/researching the least harmful forms -- that seems a decent Stuart Mill solution: as logical we cannot expect it from any present earth administration
Except who decides which is really causing harm to the enviroment and how much. One could say that solar isn't harmful until they looked at the witch's brew used to manufactored it. Or they could say the same about wind until they visit a wind farm from the eighties to see what the results of that did. Of course coal isn't any more friendly but then again going back to using wood would be even worse. Of course we could work for more hydro except that floods out habitats.

The point being that every source has it's draw backs. That none is as pure as thier cheerleaders would believe.
INTEK2

Perryville, MO

#14 Jan 7, 2011
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Except who decides which is really causing harm to the enviroment and how much. One could say that solar isn't harmful until they looked at the witch's brew used to manufactored it. Or they could say the same about wind until they visit a wind farm from the eighties to see what the results of that did. Of course coal isn't any more friendly but then again going back to using wood would be even worse. Of course we could work for more hydro except that floods out habitats.
The point being that every source has it's draw backs. That none is as pure as thier cheerleaders would believe.
How could anything we manufacture be more harmful than petroleum and its by-products ?? You will have to look a long way to find it.
INTEK2

Perryville, MO

#15 Jan 7, 2011
Cousin Jethro wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect: roughly 2/3rds the physical universe is hydrogen, go figure.h solar energy hits the earth each Enoug day to power life as we evolved within it; your thought power seems pretty dim though and could use a boost -- how about some moonbeams from tina?
Oh, and get big oil to cut their cash subsidies to crank anti-science deniers, too
Anywhere from 800 to 1000WPM (watts per meter)of sunlight strikes the earth daily,in some locations,more.The US already generates over a gigawatt of solar electricity daily.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#16 Jan 7, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
I'm not denying anyone's opinions or findings, opinions and findings mean Jack if nothing physical is done.
It doesn't really matter who analyses what or how much it might cost, at the end of the day, it's what's available that counts and currently, there isn't enough green energy to satisfy demand.
Fortunately, our friends in economics and physical sciences say otherwise. Coal is most of the problem, and most coal power plants easily convert to gas, cutting emissions in half.

Best of all, there are easy opportunities to improve efficiency in buildings of all kinds, which account for the largest share of energy use overall. Add lower carbon transportation from electric cars, gas-powered cars, biodiesel and a return to rail, plus better control of suburban sprawl, and you're almost at target. The buildout of wind, solar and nuclear power pushes it over the top, and then some.

But first, there is the little matter of overcoming a huge, entrenched energy industry that has us all by the cojones, and which seems to have convinced us to enjoy the squeezing.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#17 Jan 8, 2011
INTEK2 wrote:
How could anything we manufacture be more harmful than petroleum and its by-products ?? You will have to look a long way to find it.
Dioxins.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#18 Jan 8, 2011
INTEK2 wrote:
<quoted text>How could anything we manufacture be more harmful than petroleum and its by-products ?? You will have to look a long way to find it.
Ever heard of a toxic waste dump.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#19 Jan 8, 2011
ANd lets we forget those weapons of mass destrcution. Nothing like VX which can kill for years or Sarin which thankfully dosn't hang around as long. But of course nothing like a W88 going off in your back yard to clear out the area for the next ten thousand years. I sure everyone could agree that something so bad that the best way to decontainimate an area is to nuke it is far worse than petroleum and it's byproducts.
AMY___

United States

#20 Jan 8, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>Dioxins.
Many of these chemicals we fear so much have never been proven to kill anyone,but they could if concentrations and duration was large and long term. Chemical pollution is long term in some cases,but nuclear waste is almost forever since it will last many generations.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Joe Manchin Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Bill would stiffen background checks Dec 8 Independent1 3
Seaver pleads for turnpike tolls to remain (Jan '13) Oct '14 Malcolm 20
Senator Manchin: What My Daughter Did Should Be... Sep '14 anananana 2
Manchin's brother files civil lawsuit Aug '14 Joe smith 1
Lawmaker seeks to ban Bitcoin in U.S. (Feb '14) May '14 Reymark Perry 8
Rick Perry Fervently Supported the TARP Bailout... (Aug '11) May '14 swedenforever 127
Manchin Not Ruling Out Run for Governor (Apr '14) Apr '14 Bob 5
More from around the web