3 ms·

US pump prices are low because you don't tax it like other countries, that's not a subsidy. Environmental cost? I'll grant you that accidents involving rigs an

by earnubs 15y ago

US pump prices are low because you don't tax it like other countries, that's not a subsidy. Environmental cost? I'll grant you that accidents involving rigs and shipping are spectacular and locally devastating when they happen, but what about the pros of a cheap and relatively easy fuel, it has saved millions of lives. To give some balance what about farming? Farming has devastated the environment on a global scale. It's subsidised to the teeth too... "Profit generating mess" is hyperbole, but you can have it since I went for whataboutery.

baggachipz 15y ago
It would be a fair trade, but your whataboutery didn't include the true subsidies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies) as well as the much larger environmental cost: CO2 production from burning fossil fuels. It's going to cost a lot to clean that up, and I sincerely doubt that ExxonMobil or their brethren are going to foot that bill.
- earnubs 15y ago
  I read the wikipedia link, it seemed inconclusive. Fossil fuel subsides are less than that of renewables (unless I am reading the article wrong) and that's a 1-1 comparison, fossil fuel must utterly dwarf renewable in terms of revenue. I'm not saying that big (or small) oil is innocent by any means, personally I believe the problem lies with the political side of it, but certainly I don't think the basics of oil extraction and delivery deserve the rep they currently have. And on farming, how much carbon do you think farmers released into the atmosphere burning the trees and scrubs that stood in the way of the farmland? Not to mention the damage done to the hydrosphere? You might like this by the way, if you haven't already read it: http://harpers.org/archive/2004/02/0079915 http://harpers.org/archive/2004/02/0079915
  - baggachipz 15y ago
    The fact that fossil fuels get any subsidy is obnoxious. They're the entrenched necessary evil that needs to be made obsolete. So of course alternative fuels are subsidized, and should be until they displace fossil fuels. Farming is most certainly a problem, and I fully understand and agree with the Harper's article -- but it is a straw man in this discussion. I merely pointed out that an article authored by an oil company neglected to include the true cost of their product vs. competitors. And, unless the true cost is realized (most likely in the form of taxes on carbon emissions), fossil fuels will remain the most viable source of energy. It doesn't mean I/we have to accept it, there is a better way.
- liber8 15y ago
  What "true subsidies" are you referring to? The link you cite to doesn't really mention any. The three biggest fossil fuel subsidies listed are: Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion), the Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion), and the Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion). The first and third are deductions just about every global corporation gets. The second one appears to be subsidizing alternative fuels, not fossil fuels at all.

by earnubs 15y ago

baggachipz 15y ago

It would be a fair trade, but your whataboutery didn't include the true subsidies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies) as well as the much larger environmental cost: CO2 production from burning fossil fuels. It's going to cost a lot to clean that up, and I sincerely doubt that ExxonMobil or their brethren are going to foot that bill.

earnubs 15y ago
I read the wikipedia link, it seemed inconclusive. Fossil fuel subsides are less than that of renewables (unless I am reading the article wrong) and that's a 1-1 comparison, fossil fuel must utterly dwarf renewable in terms of revenue. I'm not saying that big (or small) oil is innocent by any means, personally I believe the problem lies with the political side of it, but certainly I don't think the basics of oil extraction and delivery deserve the rep they currently have. And on farming, how much carbon do you think farmers released into the atmosphere burning the trees and scrubs that stood in the way of the farmland? Not to mention the damage done to the hydrosphere? You might like this by the way, if you haven't already read it: http://harpers.org/archive/2004/02/0079915 http://harpers.org/archive/2004/02/0079915
- baggachipz 15y ago
  The fact that fossil fuels get any subsidy is obnoxious. They're the entrenched necessary evil that needs to be made obsolete. So of course alternative fuels are subsidized, and should be until they displace fossil fuels. Farming is most certainly a problem, and I fully understand and agree with the Harper's article -- but it is a straw man in this discussion. I merely pointed out that an article authored by an oil company neglected to include the true cost of their product vs. competitors. And, unless the true cost is realized (most likely in the form of taxes on carbon emissions), fossil fuels will remain the most viable source of energy. It doesn't mean I/we have to accept it, there is a better way.
liber8 15y ago
What "true subsidies" are you referring to? The link you cite to doesn't really mention any. The three biggest fossil fuel subsidies listed are: Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion), the Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion), and the Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion). The first and third are deductions just about every global corporation gets. The second one appears to be subsidizing alternative fuels, not fossil fuels at all.