8 ms·
Man, comments on that article are certainly ugly. I wonder why subsidies for Solar/EVs are viewed so negatively while ones for farming/oil/etc are almost ignore
by vvanders 11y ago
Man, comments on that article are certainly ugly. I wonder why subsidies for Solar/EVs are viewed so negatively while ones for farming/oil/etc are almost ignored.
- hyperbovine 11y agoBecause WSJ.
- dboreham 11y agoBecause someone with large quantities of money wants it that way. The comments are probably astroturf.
- zardo 11y agoI don't think many people realize how prevelant this is. PR firms try to move public opinion by making their clients interests seem like popular opinion. Every year of delay in renewables supplanting fossil fuels means hundreds of billions of dollars to the fossil fuels industry.
- malchow 11y agoThe world is not "Tomorrow Never Dies."
- abtinf 11y agoFarm subsidies are widely condemned, but their existence is explained through public choice theory. Perhaps you would explain to which oil subsidies you are referring?
- abhi3 11y agoWhile the west has removed subsidies on oil mostly (but don't tax it either), developing countries over the world have spend a considerable portion of their budget subsidizing the oil industry. Renewable energy subsidies are not even 1% of them aggregate.
- abtinf 11y agoI'm not sure what you mean by the west doesn't tax oil. Just off the top of my head, oil is subject to the following taxes: * Consumer purchases of the final products of oil are heavily taxed (especially in Europe). * Oil companies pay significant income tax. Exxon alone paid over $5.5B, or about 25% of net profit, in taxes last year, while in 2013 they paid closer to 42%. [1] * After they pay income tax, their dividends are taxes again. I'm sure there are other invisible taxes throughout the production and rights-acquisition process. [1]: https://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM+Income+Statement&annual https://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM+Income+Statement&annual
- yeahsure 11y agoI don't know how it works for the oil industry as a whole, but in Argentina gas is taxed at about 45%. Solar has 0 subsidies.
- skorgu 11y agoIt's not a direct oil subsidy but roads are ~50% subsidized: http://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/01/23/drivers-cover-just-51-percent-of-u-s-road-spending/ http://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/01/23/drivers-cover-just-51-...
- tosseraccount 11y agoTesla doesn't benefit from this, too?
- abtinf 11y agoCar ownership is extremely broad across all income groups in the United States, see http://www.newgeography.com/content/002666-how-lower-income-citizens-commute http://www.newgeography.com/content/002666-how-lower-income-.... The overwhelming majority of income taxes are paid by high earners, with the the top 10% paying close to 70% of all income taxes. If roads are subsidized by income taxes in addition to gas taxes, they are being paid for in an extremely progressive way. Effectively, roads are provided for free to over half the population. Or maybe I misunderstood and you are trying to make a different point?
- aljones 11y agoHalf the population doesn't pay gas taxes? You're aware that they do. That was a silly thing to say. Gas taxes may be trivial to the portion of the population that pays most of the income taxes, but I doubt the bottom half thinks of them that way. You need to show what portion of the road cost is paid for by income taxes before you can claim the rest. I don't understand why you brought any of this up. A subsidy is a subsidy no matter who pays.
- abtinf 11y agoYou are correct that I made an error in my calculation, but my point still largely stands. I took the parent at face value for the claim that 50% of roads are funded by use fees. That means the other 50% are paid for with general income taxes. Nearly all income taxes are paid for by the top half of earners. If we assume that everyone drives about the same amount, then the bottom half of the country gets the full value and use of roads while only paying for 25% of the total cost. I bring this up because the parents point seemed to be that road subsidies are an implicit subsidy to oil companies. But people need to get around somehow, and the current way of funding roads should be perfectly compatible to conventional morality. At the same time, I oppose all subsidies and can only imagine the amazing methods of transport that would exist if the government did not actively interfere and manage this market.
- jhayward 11y agoThe standard answer is to start with the US 5th fleet and work upward from there.
- abtinf 11y agoPlease point out a specific military intervention that was intended to protect the property rights of American oil companies. I am not sure I've ever seen one, quite the opposite. The United States has, in every instance, left oil companies to defend themselves when their facilities and technology are nationalized by foreign nations.
- aljones 11y agoPlease point out where this discussion about oil subsidies became restricted to American oil companies.
- abtinf 11y ago> The standard answer is to start with the US 5th fleet and work upward from there. For this sub-thread, that is where. Unless you think the US military is out defending foreign oil companies?
- aljones 11y agoThey are. That isn't the actual goal, but a side effect. What they do is ensure the supply of oil to America.
- adevine 11y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#United_States
- abtinf 11y agoThe GP's point is that there are signficant Oil subsidies. But the data in that link indicates that the overwhelming majority of subsidies are going directly to renewables and energy efficiency. What is the salient data point from that link that you would like to highlight?
- jnosdfosdknmf 11y ago> 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. Which part confuses you?
- abtinf 11y agoThere really isn't enough detail there, but what detail there is suggests those numbers are completely made up. You left out the part where the report covers the period of 1950-2010 - a 60 year period. A multi-decade accounting isn't useful when we are discussing the current state of subsidies across industries. The tax-based "subsidies" appear to just be referring to the ability to write off expenses, an aspect of the tax code that is nearly universal to every industry in all nations. There are very, very few examples of income taxes that do not allow the write-off of expenses. The second part of that summary, referring to "exemptions" from economic regulations, is bizarre. We don't generally have price controls or limits on the rate of return in the United States. It seems like that report probably just chose arbitrary numbers for what it felt the profit rate should have been, and added the difference between that and the real numbers into the subsidy number. That is more an argument for communism than anything related to a discussion about subsidy policy. You also left out the part where the real subsidies, those to the renewables industries, are actual giveaways of money. I'm not sure how an honest inquiry could make these mistakes and engage in these false comparisons, which probably explains why you used a throwaway account to post.
- krastanov 11y agoThe International Monetary Fund had a detailed report. Here is a Guardian article about it (admittedly, not the most impartial one either, but the report speaks for itself): http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fu...
- abtinf 11y agoThat is a terrible report. The numbers are entirely made up. And its condemnation of China is shockingly immoral, essentially calling for policy changes that would amount to genocide.
- marcoperaza 11y agoThe WSJ editorial line is to get rid of all of the subsidies, so you can't fault them there. Unfortunately, subsidies have constituencies, and challenging farm subsidies is considered to be political suicide for both parties. Interestingly, Ted Cruz was able to win the Iowa primary this year despite being an advocate for abolishing farm subsidies. Repealing farm subsidies isn't the best way to use your precious political capital as President. The fact that these programs are so hard to repeal is the reason why Republicans are obstructionists. A government program is the closest thing to eternal life in this world, so the best chance to stop it is at genesis. An honest leftist understands this too and accounts for it in their policies. Also, it's not really true that oil is that subsidized in the US. Most of the headline numbers include general foreign tax credits and business expense and R&D write-offs, which have nothing to do with oil in particular, as well as heating assistance for poor families.
- mikeash 11y agoDoes their editorial line include cutting the implicit subsidy of allowing people to pollute without paying for the costs, or do they consider that to be in the "not a subsidy" category?
- adrenalinelol 11y agoRight-wing media (Not this article, but the outlet is owned by Rupert Murdoch) generally paints solar with a broad brush as an industry relying purely on government subsidy for its existence and removal of such would = their demise. There is of course large conflicts of interest because fossil fuel interests are politically aligned with conservatives in America (I'd assume so in the EU too?).
- abtinf 11y agoI can't seem to connect your two sentences. Is your claim that solar energy would not collapse if subsidies were removed? I can think of a few examples of solar firms that failed even after being given massive subsidies. I'm not sure to which conflict you refer when you mention an alignment of interests between fossil fuels and conservatives. And I'm not sure how the conflict, whatever it is, relates to whether or not solar companies have a viable business model.
- knz 11y ago> I can think of a few examples of solar firms that failed even after being given massive subsidies. Many car companies have collapsed over the last century. I assume the intention of a subsidy is to support the industry as well as the specific company?
- 7952 11y agoFarm subsidies are justified based on a perception of unfair competition. That farmers would make a loss without help. You can actually make exactly the same argument about renewable energy. We invested in clean energy because it is a superior, but more expensive product. Fossil fuels are able to compete unfairly by selling a dirty product for less. Without subsidies solar would be forced to track the price of fossil fuels. As oil gets cheaper, solar becomes less profitable.
- beautybasics 11y agoIt's very important to account for indirect costs too. - Harmful emissions killing thousands [1] - Degradation of environment such as water contamination. - Geo-political implications. [1] - http://www.ehhi.org/reports/exhaust/summary.shtml http://www.ehhi.org/reports/exhaust/summary.shtml
- abtinf 11y agoI've heard a number of arguments in favor of farm subsidies, but never one based on "unfair" competition. I'm curious about what you mean. American farmers are incredibly competitive and efficient, so I'm not sure who they could be threatened by. And I'm not sure how you are relating that point to "clean energy". You say solar should be subsidized because it is a superior product. Are American farm products somehow superior as well? Is grain from the mid-west some how better than grain from Europe? Or is corn syrup cleaner than sugar cane from Cuba?
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoFarmers make no money. The government-supported crop insurance means they don't lose money as fast. And unfair? We use that word to describe cars, steel, electronics but not grain? A Brazilian farmer can grow grain, haul it using donkeys to a barge, sail it down river to the coast, pay for shipping on a grain scow, and load it on a train to Chicago, for less than farmers in Iowa can afford to grow it. Its got to mean miserable working conditions for people in that whole chain. Is this any different from clothing or iPhones?
- aerovistae 11y agoI know, right?? I was perusing them in disbelief. They seem planted. It's just amazing to me. People focus on SpaceX's government contracts, disregarding the MASSIVE subsidies ULA receives and disregarding the fact that SpaceX is dropping the price of rocket launches like a brick off a cliff, which will (obviously??) save far, far more taxpayer money in the long run than if SpaceX had not done this. People focus on Tesla's subsidies, but ignore the massive bailouts given to the other auto manufacturers and ignore the future potential of Tesla to bring large amounts of jobs and money into the US as the cars are exported around the world. They ignore how much money will be saved by a cleaner environment in the long run, in healthcare costs and environmental costs. They overlook that Tesla paid back all its government loans with interest, making it a solid investment. They ignore everything relevant. And with SolarCity, people focus on it having received some small amount of subsidies while disregarding the fact that a future where we don't have to pay electric bills or gas bills will save us all far more than we might have to spend in taxes now. These people seem to imagine that Musk's companies are taking up valuable money that could have been used elsewhere, but truly, what better use for money than to break the mold of dysfunctional legacy infrastructure?
- sixQuarks 11y agoLobbying groups are known to pay people to comment spam like this. The irony is too great though, the oil/gas industry has about $6 trillion in subsidies per year when you factor in environmental damage.
- melling 11y agoThat's every article about Tesla and Solar City in the WSJ.