Fossil Fuels are a 5.9 Trillion Public Charity

It does not include the health and infrastructure damage caused by fossil fuel pollution. The people pay for that. We also get to pay for the oil spills and accidents.
 
Quotes are from the link in the OP:

First, let’s consider just the direct subsidies for fossil fuel production—money that flows directly from the government to fossil fuel companies to support activities like exploration, extraction, and development. A conservative estimate from Oil Change International puts the U.S. total at around $20.5 billion annually, including $14.7 billion in federal subsidies and $5.8 billion in state-level incentives. A whopping 80 percent of this goes to oil and gas (with the rest supporting coal), and most of the subsidies are in the form of tax deductions and exemptions and other “obscure tax loopholes and accounting tricks” that result in massive avoided costs for fossil fuel producers.
Click to expand...

Another absurd notion. Tax exemptions and deductions are common to all of business and industry. It is a canard to claim that somehow energy companies alone take advantage of these. That's a level playing field, unless you can demonstrate specific tax exemptions that apply to the energy industry alone.
Money given to energy companies for "development" (aka R&D) are likely co-mingled here. That is, some of that money is given for them to develop "clean energy," other monies to develop specific products for use in things like the military which otherwise wouldn't be developed. So, that number is highly suspect too.

Going to this site linked in the OP...

http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2017/10/OCI_US-Fossil-Fuel-Subs-2015-16_Final_Oct2017.pdf

I find that a group that's anti-oil put out a report. Big grain of salt in reading that. Many of the so-called subsidies they list aren't, such as saying that energy companies use LIFO (Last In, First Out) accounting techniques to report costs and income. Big deal. Many companies use such techniques to their advantage. It is allowed under normal accounting practices and standards and doesn't amount to a subsidy. In fact, their table listing so-called subsidies is full of items that are accounting tricks that are legal and any company would use to reduce their tax burden.

They then repeat this canard:

Another massive indirect subsidy to fossil fuels? The estimated $81 billion that the U.S. military spends to protect oil supplies around the globe...
Click to expand...

Or, this obvious nonsense:

...including the direct military spending on things like protecting oil shipping routes...
Click to expand...

The US military doesn't protect oil shipping routes, it protects freedom of the seas and all shipping moving any and all items by sea. The US is hardly alone in that, since every nation with a navy does the same thing for the same reason. They want merchant ships to move goods--all goods--without fear of piracy or interdiction.

So, this is just another article by vested interests that are against fossil fuels as energy sources. It can be safely ignored for the nonsense it is.
 
Nordberg said:
It does not include the health and infrastructure damage caused by fossil fuel pollution. The people pay for that. We also get to pay for the oil spills and accidents.
Click to expand...

What pollution? Define 'pollution'. Fossils aren't used for fuel. Fossils don't burn.

Nobody likes an oil spill. It's a waste of product. Fortunately, bacteria will eventually destroy the oil so it doesn't cause permanent harm to anywhere.
 
Nordberg said:
It does not include the health and infrastructure damage caused by fossil fuel pollution. The people pay for that. We also get to pay for the oil spills and accidents.
Click to expand...

What pollution? Define 'pollution'. Fossils aren't used for fuel. Fossils don't burn.

Nobody likes an oil spill. It's a waste of product. Fortunately, bacteria will eventually destroy the oil so it doesn't cause permanent harm to anywhere.
Nobody likes electrical accidents, car accidents, gun accidents, or just plain walking into a standing bus accidents.

But they all occur.
 
Nordberg said:
Do you live in a vacuum? You seem to have no knowledge of facts and make up your own. https://www.npr.org/2015/04/20/4003...oil-spill-effects-linger-and-recovery-is-slow You are delusional.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, oil and spills, etc., of it and related products have been far more harmful to the environment than nuclear. It's becoming clearer that solar and wind in large scale are environmental disasters of their own. The answer is nuclear. Done right, like in France and the US, it is safe--safer than coal, oil, solar, or wind--and takes up a tiny footprint. The waste is not only manageable, but compact and can be safely stored. There is also more than a thousand year supply of fuel for it.

Remember:

In 1900 oil was just becoming the energy source
In 1800 coal was just becoming the energy source
In 1700 we cut down forests for energy

Where will we be in 300 years on energy? I can tell you with good confidence it won't be wind and solar.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
On the other hand, oil and spills, etc., of it and related products have been far more harmful to the environment than nuclear. It's becoming clearer that solar and wind in large scale are environmental disasters of their own. The answer is nuclear. Done right, like in France and the US, it is safe--safer than coal, oil, solar, or wind--and takes up a tiny footprint. The waste is not only manageable, but compact and can be safely stored. There is also more than a thousand year supply of fuel for it.

Remember:

In 1900 oil was just becoming the energy source
In 1800 coal was just becoming the energy source
In 1700 we cut down forests for energy

Where will we be in 300 years on energy? I can tell you with good confidence it won't be wind and solar.
Click to expand...

I’m with you on the nuclear option over wind and solar being the future.

And I’d likely put more stock in the article if it wasn’t from a group that is so obviously anti-oil.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
On the other hand, oil and spills, etc., of it and related products have been far more harmful to the environment than nuclear. It's becoming clearer that solar and wind in large scale are environmental disasters of their own. The answer is nuclear. Done right, like in France and the US, it is safe--safer than coal, oil, solar, or wind--and takes up a tiny footprint. The waste is not only manageable, but compact and can be safely stored. There is also more than a thousand year supply of fuel for it.

Remember:

In 1900 oil was just becoming the energy source
In 1800 coal was just becoming the energy source
In 1700 we cut down forests for energy

Where will we be in 300 years on energy? I can tell you with good confidence it won't be wind and solar.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, you don't get to dictate energy markets. People are going to buy the form of energy they want.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the funny thing about fossil fuel "subsidies".......they are actually business expenses........every business gets to deduct their expenses.......oh, you spent money looking for new wells?.......you can deduct that from your income........accountants are shocked, I tell you......literally shocked!......
Click to expand...

The funny thing about 'fossil fuels' is that they don't exist. Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel.

Oil is not a fossil. Natural gas is not a fossil.
 
Into the Night said:
On the other hand, you don't get to dictate energy markets. People are going to buy the form of energy they want.
Click to expand...

Governments can dictate this. For example, both California and Germany have ended use of nuclear power and both are seeing the cost of a kwh double, then triple. Germany banned natural gas for home heating so people use pellet stoves now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top