6 ms·

I meant that the examples benefit oil, gas, and nuclear overwhelmingly as opposed to the renewable sectors in the report. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. Obvio

I meant that the examples benefit oil, gas, and nuclear overwhelmingly as opposed to the renewable sectors in the report. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. Obviously, a program that applies to all companies will see more expenditures for the oil and gas companies because they exist in a larger and more established industry. That is still tax-payer money being spent to encourage growth in that sector, and much less, comparatively speaking, is being spent in those sectors than on renewables. Thus, I find it a little disingenuous to roll out that 10x factor which ignores a lot of subsidization for an industry which many would argue doesn't need much more encouragement.

protomyth 12y ago
Other than the nuclear part, the taxes are not field specific and 10x is actually an understatement of part of the table of taxes. It is a common canard that we don't provide incentives for renewable energy when we actually do in great amounts. I find it disingenuous to say we are not giving subsidies and breaks to renewables when it is right there in a table (ES2). Heck, direct expenditures were 46 million for oil and gas to 4,696 million for Renewables. The technology failure to build an energy source / process that is cheaper with better storage options than oil & gas is the primary problem. Lack of taxpayer funds is not.