4 ms·
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-
by 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 agoThe 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.