Slashdot Mirror

Traitor trump created that narrative himself.

According to a report from what appears to be a very anti-fossil-fuel organization*, the US spends $20 billion per year on fossil fuel subsidies. Sounds like a lot right? But it turns out the US collects $35 billion in fuel taxes.

Now there's probably some non-monetary benefits that's not being counted, but if the government is making $15 billion a year from it, I don't think it's a subsidy overall.

* Their mission is apparently "exposing the true costs of fossil fuels and facilitating the coming transition towards clean energy"

Regardless of the reasons (or potential solutions), an energy strategy based solely around renewables results in higher energy prices. The only countries I've heard that have relatively affordable renewable energy are those with excellent geography for hydroelectric power and has a low population relative to land area, which are unfortunately not that common across the world.

Until a country actually manages lower their electricity costs with renewables, most other countries should approach it with caution.

...one could also have hidden this in general taxes similar to the subsidies for fossil fuel or nuclear.

I heard this a few times, so I looked into it. According to a report from what appears to be a very anti-fossil-fuel organization*, the US spends $20 billion per year on fossil fuel subsidies. Sounds like a lot, but then I remembered that there's fuel taxes. Turns out the US collects $35 billion in fuel taxes. Now there's probably some non-monetary benefits that's not being counted, but if the government is making money from it overall, I don't think it counts as a subsidy.

* Their mission is apparently "exposing the true costs of fossil fuels and facilitating the coming transition towards clean energy", so I'd take their numbers with a slab of red Himalayan rock salt

Fossil fuel subsidies by the US run to $200 trillion a year.

If we spent one year of that on alternatives, we'd be fossil fuel free and energy independent by 2020.

The following year, we could wipe out the national debt, introduce universal incomes, revitalise education and rebuild national infrastructure and the space program.

You seem to have a few extra zeros in your subsidies number.The 2017 total was $20.5 billion. If you consider the social costs of fossil fuel use, it could be as much as $200 billion. Where did your extra orders of magnitude come from?

In fact, I would rather the feds just get out of the way.

Sure, as long as they do it honestly, and cut the federal funding to the fossil fuel companies by the same percentage.

Otherwise, this is just more Republican BS of cutting funding for stuff they don't like while maintaining funding for what they do like.

It's not like they're not funding the fossil fuel people for hundreds of billions of dollars.

The intellectual dishonesty here is blatant ... as long as you're one of Trump's rich cronies, you'll get government money. Everyone else can eat cake.

Because the amount they fund renewables is a drop in the bucket compared to what the asshole oil companies get.

My used Leaf set me back a whole $15.000. Now it is worth less than $10,000. I was also considering a used Camry at the time.

It is amusing to read the rantings of misinformed masses as they skewer every aspect of electric car ownership while completely ignoring the massive oil subsidies.

There is a reason that gasoline costs twice as much outside of the United States.

I agree with Musk that we need to move away from fossil fuels, but gasoline vehicles have a net tax, not a subsidy. Going through the first page of Google hits, the biggest figure for oil industry subsidies in the U.S. I can find is $37.5 billion/yr. (Note that the dollar amount of a tax exemption or a deduction is not equal to the subsidy dollar amount.)

The U.S. uses about 140 billion gallons of gasoline each year. So even if you assumed the entirety of that subsidy were on gasoline (less than half of a barrel of oil becomes gasoline), that works out to a subsidy of just 26.8 cents per gallon.

The average fuel tax on gasoline in the U.S. is 48.7 cents/gallon. So gasoline has a net tax on it - it is taxed more than the subsidy it receives.

The difference is even starker in other OECD countries, where gasoline is taxed to the tune of several dollars a gallon. We are addicted to gasoline and fossil fuels because the easy access to energy acts as a multiplier for our productivity, allowing us to increase our standard of living relatively cheaply (in terms of financial cost). Even with the net tax, we are still addicted to it. So even if all the complaining about oil subsidies works and they're completely rescinded, it won't make a dent in our oil consumption. The price of gasoline has fluctuated more this year due to market forces, than the above calculated subsidy amount.

Specifically, what oil subsidies?

Specifically...

TL;DC: (too lazy, didn't click): Well over ten billion dollars a year in taxpayer funded support, quite aside from what the petroleum products actually cost when we buy them intentionally. Of course, that's just the US. Internationally, it's over half a trillion dollars yearly.

Personally, I would rather see that money go elsewhere, and have petroleum users pay the actual cost, as that would tend to cause the market to correct itself into an actual sane producer/consumer mold.

It's very reminiscent of buying a pizza. You think it costs X, and only when you buy the pizza: "Not buying a pizza tonight, I'll not be spending any money on pizza." Wrong. You pay social safety net costs that are incurred because Pizza Hut and so forth are paying workers less than a living wage so the cost of the pizza can appear to be lower. But it still costs what it costs; and you pay it anyway. It's just hidden in your taxes. Same thing for petroleum products. You're paying a lot more than you think you are, and it's not only when you actually buy the product.

In both cases -- Pizza Producers and Big Oil -- the businesses slough off the costs onto your shoulders indirectly, via government largess. I won't even eat at Papa John's (the pizza is horrifically bad) but I pay for that crap anyway. As a pizza lover, I find that offensive.

Walmart?

Same thing. They underpay, the taxpayer takes up the slack.

Etc.

Who wouldn't rather get "free energy" from the wind, the natural flow of water, or the sun shining down on us?

Who indeed.

http://priceofoil.org/fossil-f...

http://www.petrostrategies.org...

https://www.opensecrets.org/po...

The oil industry receives far larger subsidies per year than Musk is accused of receiving over three companies and many years. And some of the "subsidies" Musk is accused of receiving consisted of loans that were paid back with interest.

This concept of "oil subsidies" is just nonsense.

Oil subsidies are huge, a fact you can easily confirm with a few seconds of Googling. Here's what I found in less than 10 seconds:

http://priceofoil.org/fossil-f...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.taxpayer.net/images...

The Libertarian Fundamentalist on this board don't really believe in competition, they obsequiously believe in "free" markets and imagine that the oil companies prosper in a "free" market (which is freer to those with wealth and power).

To quote http://priceofoil.org/fossil-f... :

In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually yet these donÃf(TM)t even include costs borne by taxpayers related to the climate, local environmental, and health impacts of the fossil fuel industry.

http://priceofoil.org/fossil-f...

Do you know what I love about you Basil? The plainest statement of fact by someone, if not in line with your ideology, must be attacked as whining and complaining.

It was whining and complaining. There are a myriad of government subsidies, most of which you CAN'T claim. Here's one you can claim, by simply doing the promoted actiokn of buying an EV. And yet this is the one you complain about, not all the ones you can't claim, that are orders of magnitude bigger. Not only is it whining, it's dumb whining.

So you didn't know that the oil companies are subsidized. Here's a clue, in future before you make a fool of yourself, try Google. e.g.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

http://priceofoil.org/fossil-f...

http://www.theatlantic.com/bus...

What they want is control over global industry, insane amounts of unaudited "international aid money" and absolute moral authority.

Solve the problem and you take away their power, their money, and their claims to moral superiority.

This is something they will never let die.

If we fixed the climate tomorrow they'd still be harping about it.

That's always the case when special interests have their hands in the cookie jar whether it be environmentalists (who can't agree with each other sometimes) or the fossil fuel industries. And yes coal and petroleum get subsidies. Fossil Fuel Subsidies in the U.S.. CATO again, Clean Coal Subsidies, Energy Subsidies, and T. Boone Hard-Wired for Subsidies. From Bloomberg, hardly an environmental sympathizer, Fossil Fuel Subsidies Six Times More Than Renewable Energy.

FalconWolf

Shesh, nope. First, what tax subsidies are you talking about? There is no way Coal is subsidized, nor is oil and gas.

Do a little research. Here's a starting point.

So the IMF calculated the "subsidies" they found to be $500 Million in the US http://www.imf.org/external/np... and the site *you* send me to is claiming BILLIONS? Something is amiss here. I smell a rat, so lets ask some questions.

WHAT is a subsidy to you? A "special" tax break? A check that gets issued from the government directly to a producer? Neither of these exist. What we have is a bunch of people (like the authors of pricefoil.org) who are not above misleading people to trick them into believing their cause is just. They are LYING to you.... Wake up!

Shesh, nope. First, what tax subsidies are you talking about? There is no way Coal is subsidized, nor is oil and gas.

Do a little research. Here's a starting point.

It's going to be cheaper to make electricity by natural gas for a LONG time, especially over solar.

That depends on how bad the fracking earthquakes get.

I think this is incorrect, or at least you need to better define "the oil industry". Here is booklet put out by the USA Refiners in support of maintaining the crude export ban. If by "industry" you include Dutch Shell, BP, and others who want to refine in competition with the USA's domestic refiners, you can find their "rebuttal" on page 16. http://priceofoil.org/content/...

Yeah, it's already happening, but it seems to not be happening fast enough to actually reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Perhaps Republicans can propose eliminating subsidies to the fossil fuel industry to help alternative energy sources compete with fossil fuels on cost.

Oil came into its own without a ton of federal help, so why can't alternative forms of energy?

The USG already heavily subsidizes fossil fuel energy: http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

Uncounted costs include the cost of disaster relief from oil spills and accidents which isn't an official subsidy, but this happens frequently enough that it can be counted as a yearly expenditure, and imho these companies (like BP) have not been held fully accountable for these incidents.

https://ixquick.com/do/search?language=english&cat=web&query=us+government+oil+subsidies [ixquick.com]

http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/international/ [priceofoil.org]

Why not? Every other type of energy gets subsidies, especially when they are starting out. And while most of us just shake our head at the massive profits oil companies make year after year they continue to be subsidized by our government - and I'm sure the good ol' GOP boys and gals wouldn't have it any other way.

But don't take my word for it, Ixquick it. Here, I got you started.

https://ixquick.com/do/search?language=english&cat=web&query=us+government+oil+subsidies

http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/international/

Your skepticism is admirable, but Google is (mostly) your friend. For example, Fossil Fuel Subsidies in the U.S., or America's Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea: Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies, or Happy 100th Birthday, Big Oil Tax Breaks. From the last article:

...The percentage depletion subsidy also increases when prices are high, at the same time that oil companies enjoy greater profit. It can even eliminate all federal taxes for independent producers.

If they were doing everything right then why the need for the tax credit?

It's a mere pittance compared to the decades-old infrastructure that a fossil-fuel powered car gets for "free" because we essentially subsidize the entire petroleum fuel supply chain at a federal level [1] to the tune of $10s of billions of dollars. Yes, that's for mega-corporations who are making record profits every quarter [2].

So 200k models qualify for the credit at $7500 a piece. That's a neat $1.5M for each car manufacturer - how does that compare to the $Billions in yearly subsidies that the petro infrastructure gets that's passed on to each gas/diesel guzzling car/truck on the road?

Quit whining about the tiny tax credit. Instead start complaining about how the big three auto manufacturers and Big oil are bending us over a barrel.

[1] http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
[2] http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=5503955&page=1

That, and the massive public funding for the construction and maintainance of oil transport - pipelines and such. And a number of focused tax deductions for drilling costs. Federal loan guarantees. A public-private partnership program for offshore oil and gas exploration. The 'marginal wells credit.' There's a It's hard to even estmate the total subsidy, as it comes in so many small chunks, but it's probably somewhere in the region of $20-50B annually.

Here's a partial list: http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2012/05/SandersSummaryFinal.pdf

Exxon's income tax rate is below the 35% rate mandated by corporate tax law

That is also from a fairly balanced article.

Falling for leftist catchphrases unexamined? Deliberately distorting the facts? I don't know what your problem is, but you're not getting away with it this time.

ChrisMaple (or whatever your real name is), to put an end to my villainous catchphrasing, surely you can save the day by finding some facts to back up the "fact" stated by dublin that "the oil industry evolved from the same people who ran the cattle industry, where a man's word was his bond and multi-million dollar deals were made on a handshake?" No? Well how about evidence that "Government (and 'free governemtn money') corrupts pretty much everything absolutely" and yet the oil industry is not corrupted by government money? How about identifying any "deliberately distorted facts" in my prior post (or this one)? You'll definitely need to do something like that, because calling me a moron is certainly not going to hamper me at all.

"green" energy is too expensive to compete with proven yet "dirty" tech? well instead of developing the green tech to compete we must artificially increase the cost of the dirty fuel!

Wrong. In some places, unsubsized solar is already cheaper than coal. And fossil fuels are already heavily subsidized. Why is the parent marked insightful?!

.....Annnnnd if you believe that, you need to leave now and go kill yourself. When you open domestic drilling, it's more money in the pockets of the people running the country. Simple as that. It's the only reason. Oil money runs the US, and probably a lot of other countries.

More fun reading to see what your funding when you gas up that fat-ass SUV . You may as well be dealing drugs out of mexico.

Okay... here are the facts
http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
One recent comprehensive study of U.S. energy subsidies (see graph below) identified $72.5 billion in federal subsidies for fossil fuels between 2002-2008, or just over $10 billion annually. For more information on the range of subsidies, see below.

And that ignores over a Trillion dollars in military spending in Iraq- which would have NEVER HAPPENED if Iraq lacked oil.

So you seriously think that the rich and greedy aren't thinking about this too?
If that's really that's going to happen then there's a great many people who's reaction is that there's money to be made.
If you're an investor and if you think the price of oil is about to skyrocket then you're going to invest in oil, drive up the price and then sell when you think you can make the most profit from it.

it becomes irrelevant how high the price becomes because no one can pay it

Now that's just silly.
The price is not set by god.
The price is set by what people are willing to pay so by definition somebody will be buying it and using it for something.

we would have seen this steady rise in price for a while now.

What?
you mean like this?
http://priceofoil.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/oil_prices.png

They manipulate the market by over-reporting their oil reserves, just like the link I provided earlier.

And if so then other people will be taking advantage of this to milk money out of them.

If what I suggest is correct, the REAL BIG problem we will have is going from an economy supported by 30 billion barrels of oil a year to 0.

Which is totally unrealistic.
you think every oil company in the world is going to turn around a few years from now and say, right we ran out of oil today, no we didn't charge you through the nose for the last 5 years because we're retarded and not greedy at all and the wells didn't gradually dry up, they all stopped producing oil at the same moment.

That is a stupidly big amount of energy that we need to compensate for.

and some people will make a stupidly big amount of money building things

So no, investing in alt energy won't do me any good because money will be worthless by then.

You seem very certain that overnight every oil company will turn around and admit they have zero oil left and that somehow that will bring down civilisation.
Given that our electricity generation systems are pretty much based on coal right now the lights won't all suddenly go out.
The price of oil is already going up so lots and lots of people are investing in alternates, food won't stop being shipped though it will cost more to ship it and as such food may get a little more expensive and some poor countries will probably have problems while in others people will invest in more local food production.

And to make matters worse, all of our alt energy is HIGHLY dependent on oil to research, develop, and produce. Uranium, coal, and other such fuels must be mined (oil powered machinery) and shipped to be converted into energy.

Oh come on.
Enough uranium to run a plant for a year trivial.
you could carry it by pack mule and still it wouldn't be a problem (ok it's heavy but I hope you get the point).
Small/dense extremely high value items and commodities are not going to be a problem to transport.
As for the mining far more often the equipment is electric powered and you can get that electricity wherever you want.

If you want a really good example of what happens when oil demand outstrips oil supply, take a look at how the US won the Cold War. Basically, we made the USSR's economy collapse by making their oil peak. The US got into an arms race with the USSR which was fueled by oil on both sides. The US kept ramping up production and the Soviets kept in step. However, the US had a larger supply of oil and eventually the USSR had too high of a demand for oil for their supply to support.

No.
Just no.
The USSR had pleanty of oil
they had enough oil to swim in.
they had oil to spare.
What hurt them was that they were pissing money away on weapons and then the price of oil DROPPED.
They were SELLING oil.

Their economy was heavily based on selling that oil.
It wasn't expensive oil that hurt them it was cheap oil.