Fossil Fuel Subsidies Dwarf Support For Renewables

TravisTR sends word of research from Bloomberg New Energy Finance which found that direct subsidies for renewable energy from governments worldwide totaled $43-46 billion in 2009, an amount vastly outstripped by the $557 billion in fossil fuel subsidies during 2008. "The BNEF preliminary analysis suggests the US is the top country, as measured in dollars deployed, in providing direct subsidies for clean energy with an estimated $18.2bn spent in total in 2009. Approximately 40% of this went toward supporting the US biofuels sector with the rest going towards renewables. The federal stimulus program played a key role; its Treasury Department grant program alone provided $3.8bn in support for clean energy projects. China, the world leader in new wind installations in 2009 with 14GW, provided approximately $2bn in direct subsidies, according to the preliminary analysis. This figure is deceptive, however, as much crucial support for clean energy in the country comes in form of low-interest loans from state-owned banks. State-run power generators and grid companies have also been strongly encouraged by the government to tap their balance sheets in support of renewables."

Comments

No Surprises Here

[WrongSizeGlass]

The fossil fuel industry has a lobbing campaign that dwarfs that of renewable energy. 'nuf said.

Re:No Surprises Here

[c6gunner]

The fossil fuel industry has a lobbing campaign that dwarfs that of renewable energy. 'nuf said.

Ah, yes, it's all about the lobbyists. It can't have anything to do with the scale difference between the renewable energy industry and the fossil fuel industry.

You know what REALLY pisses me off? I, as an individual, get close to ZERO subsidies! Where's my $40 billion? I demand equal treatment!

Re:No Surprises Here

[Hinhule]

They are lobbying to use dwarfs as the next renewable energy source?

Re:No Surprises Here

[tenco]

You know what REALLY pisses me off? I, as an individual, get close to ZERO subsidies! Where's my $40 billion? I demand equal treatment!

Without subsidies your electricity bill would be larger.

Re:No Surprises Here

[WrongSizeGlass]

They are lobbying to use dwarfs as the next renewable energy source?

Yes. Yes they are. It's a small operation, but some find it entertaining.

Re:No Surprises Here

[Ol Biscuitbarrel]

The taxes paid by the FF industry...dwarf the subsidies they receive, however. In the case of the major oil companies it's very dubious that they should still get handouts, but some of the tax breaks have been useful to small operators; about 2 million barrels per day of US oil production comes from stripper wells that have Mineral Rights | Oil & Gas Lease and Royalty Information

Re:No Surprises Here

[piotru]

So I guess the opponents should spend more money on the lobbying, because so far their arguments do not convince me...

Re:No Surprises Here

[Ol Biscuitbarrel]

Whoops, /. truncated me there big time. About 2 million barrels per day of US oil production comes from stripper wells that have 10 barrels per day of output, most of these are from small time operators not the majors, and have been a major factor in keeping the decline in US production low since it peaked at the beginning of the 70s. Tax breaks for these nickel and dime operations help. Also oil companies Big and otherwise pay a heap more taxes than they receive subsidies. Just saying. US is one of few nations where a person can own mineral rights.

Re:No Surprises Here

[commodore64_love]

I'd like to know why they include military expenses as a "subsidy" for fossil fuels. We don't have to use the military to get oil from Iran or Iraq - we could buy it from friendly countries like Canada, UK, Russia.

Also renewable energy like solar cells, hydroelectric, and so on need military protection as well (from invasion or terrorism). So the military expenses should be on that tally sheet too, but they conveniently left it off.

Re:No Surprises Here

[BigSlowTarget]

Iran's government owned oil company doesn't lobby their government. That's where 1/5th of the subsidies are from - essentially price breaks for the Iranian people from the Iranian government oil company.

Re:No Surprises Here

[tompaulco]

Without subsidies your electricity bill would be larger.
Subsidies aren't magic. They come from taxes. Without the taxes which support this subsidy and the associated bureaucratic and overhead waste, my electricity cost would be higher, but my total household cost would be lower.

Re:No Surprises Here

[tompaulco]

I'd like to know why they include military expenses as a "subsidy" for fossil fuels.
Because it helps to spin the story to express the viewpoint which they would like you to believe and they hope that most people will not dig too deeply and just accept them at their word.

Re:No Surprises Here

[NatasRevol]

I'm sure subsidies are somewhat wrapped up in the $13Trillion in US national debt. Most of which was brought about by the Bush 2 administration who had direct ties to the oil industry.

Re:No Surprises Here

[Ash Vince]

The taxes paid by the FF industry...dwarf the subsidies they receive, however.

Any evidence to back this up? Or are you just guessing?

Re:No Surprises Here

[tepples]

We don't have to use the military to get oil from Iran or Iraq - we could buy it from friendly countries like Canada, UK, Russia.

My guess at the neocon rationale: What happens when Canada, Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Russia start to run out?

Re:No Surprises Here

[Anonymous Coward]

You talk some shit. The UK is a net importer of oil, so I don't think there's too much left over to sell to the mighty US of A.

Honestly, I get fed up with the facile crap that you spew onto slashdot. Every single post is calculated to score some easy mod points from the dickheads who take this place seriously. You're a boring arsehole. PS Yes I had a ZX Spectrum, fuck you! :)

Re:No Surprises Here

[TastyCakes]

Compare this to this.

Re:No Surprises Here

[c6gunner]

Could have bought it from Iraq, too, instead of trying to keep them from exporting it. Everyone else was doing it, but apparently America didn't wanna be one of the cool kids.

Re:No Surprises Here

[TastyCakes]

Yes, this article is somewhat misleading. First, it's talking about world wide subsidies, which considering most of the world's oil is owned produced by state owned companies is likely a very complicated calculation. This article puts US subsidies at between $15 and $35 billion, numbers that include some very dubious things in there, such as construction of the highway system, the strategic petroleum reserve etc.
What people don't seem to understand is the motivation for US subsidies. The US government wants to encourage as much domestic production as is reasonably possible, and they don't want a government entity to have to produce it (like countries with nationalized oil industries do). The only way to do this, therefore, is to make it more attractive for oil companies to extract oil that would otherwise be uneconomical. "Relaxing the amount of royalties to be paid", as the link above calls it, is I believe the main way the US government supports the oil industry.
If these royalties reductions weren't in place, many of the wells in America would simply be uneconomical. The stripper wells mentioned by someone before wouldn't stand a chance, and collectively they account for 18% of US production (according to Wikipedia). Without deep water credits, much of the gulf production would be an economic non starter (and gulf production is about a third of US production). And the overriding thing that people ignore is that 50% of zero is less than 5% of something. If you force a stripper well producing 2 barrels a day to pay a regular royalty, you're not going to bring in more money for the government, you're going to force that well to be plugged and abandoned, and it's probably never going to be economical to redrill it. Both the government and the industry loses.
It is expensive to extract oil in America's increasingly depleted fields, particularly compared to the younger and much larger oil provinces of the middle east and elsewhere. Because of this, the US government grants the oil industry here better incentives than in those countries to try and keep them in America - simply put, they allow the companies to keep more of the oil they produce. Maybe Americans are no longer comfortable with that deal, but they must remember that hiking royalties will significantly lower US production and will necessitate greater imports from unsavory places.

Re:No Surprises Here

[commodore64_love]

Well that is logical. It makes more sense to drain countries like Venezuela and Arabia and Iran dry of oil, while you leave your own reserves untouched. Then circa 2050 you can sell your North American oil for big bucks.

Re:No Surprises Here

[Geoffrey.landis]

Without subsidies your electricity bill would be larger.

And that would be a good thing. It makes sense that the people who use electricity should pay for electricity.
This is known as a "market economy," and it encourages things like efficiency, and matching the supply to the demand.

There's some sense to subsidizing an emerging technology: encouraging the fledgling technologies in hope some of them will grow could result in a large payout further down the line. There's no sense in subsidizing the giants.

...In the case of the major oil companies it's very dubious that they should still get handouts, but some of the tax breaks have been useful to small operators...

And only a trivial percentage of the tax breaks actually go to small operators, because the big operators have much more money to lobby with; and also much more money to pay lawyers to find the loopholes to enable them to qualify for the subsidies intended to support small operators. (Much like farm subsidies, actually-- the bills that are passed because they will be "supporting America's family farms" actually end up supporting the huge factory operations.)

Re:No Surprises Here

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

No, the way I read the headline, fossil fuels are providing a subsidy provide renewable energy for dwarves. I didn't realize they were incompatible with existing renewable energy, but I suppose high winds at windfarms, or large waves at wavefarms, might sweep them away more easily than full-sized people...

Re:No Surprises Here

[PopeRatzo]

The only way to do this, therefore, is to make it more attractive for oil companies to extract oil that would otherwise be uneconomical.

If it's "uneconomical" to drill that for as much as 2 million barrels of domestic supply, wouldn't you think this is a big incentive to increase development of alternative sources of energy?

The reason these subsidies irk a lot of people is because the same conservative "grass-roots" "think-tanks" and the Chamber of Commerce that are all about letting the God of the Free Market control everything would howl with outrage if these subsidies to oil companies were to be cut off or even reduced.

There's no where near a concerted effort to develop alternative energy in the US, despite environmental disasters of enormous scale, including a million barrels now dumped into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. Yet, any time alternative energy is mentioned, you'll hear scoffing and arguments such as "Alternative energy is never going to replace energy" or "If it was going to happen, it would have happened already" or "Solar energy can never be useful because it wasn't useful ten years ago".

What they're really saying is "Nothing's going to replace fossil fuels until we find another source of energy that will enrich the same corporations and to the same extent that are currently getting rich from fossil fuels". If there was a way that BP or Exxon could get hugely rich off of solar energy, solar energy would have replaced fossil fuels decades ago.

Re:No Surprises Here

[PopeRatzo]

The fossil fuel industry shows profits in the hundreds of billions.

And they still expect to be paid by the government to convince them it's worth their time to make hundreds of billions.

I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. And the same people who believe the free market should determine everything about our lives also believe those subsidies to oil companies are absolutely necessary. And a remarkable number of those people are the same ones who will tell you that we absolutely must continue to pay huge cost overruns and ridiculous markups to military contractors, because otherwise, they might not want to make all that great hardware with which we fight our glorious wars.

Oh, and absolutely no negotiating with pharmaceutical companies, because otherwise they won't want to do the research and make the pills that earn them hundreds of billions in profits. And although CEOs must be free to negotiate hundred-million dollar salaries because that's the free market at work no workers must be allowed to collectively negotiate their salaries because that would HURT the free market. Got that? CEO's negotiating = Good / Workers negotiating = Bad

Re:No Surprises Here

[Antisyzygy]

We spend more than all the other nations of the world COMBINED on our military and other defense. We need to shift that money elsewhere or at least try to conquer the world so we have something to show for it. Apparently we are doing the latter, but they are doing a damn poor job of it.

Re:No Surprises Here

[Antisyzygy]

The underground kingdom of the Dwarves have superior steam technology that would "dwarf" our primitive fossil fuel technology.

Re:No Surprises Here

[sjames]

Yes, but the oil companies do like the cheaper higher grade stuff from the Middle East. Why in the world else would we be so involved in the Middle East decade after decade while refusing to intervene in places that actually ASK for our help?

Every country needs protection from invasion and has a military to deal with that. None of them spend anywhere near as much of their national budget on it as we do. If all our military had to do was protect us from invasion, they wouldn't be dropping so many of those million dollar smart bombs today. You seem to be desperately clutching at straws here.

Re:No Surprises Here

[GrumblyStuff]

While it's hard to say exactly how much goes into it, the US has protected the interests of business both overtly and covertly.

Iran was about oil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état

Guatemala was about bananas (and communists). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d'état

When Brazil was making overtures to Cuba, US reduced aid. A military coup eventually happened and the US immediately recognized the new government and loaned them money. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_–_United_States_relations#History

US and Chile go back a long ways. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_intervention_in_Chile

Dominican Republic was invaded to prevent it from becoming "a second Cuba." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965_United_States_occupation_of_the_Dominican_Republic#US_invasion

US supported 7 year long military coup in Greece ('67-'74). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_–_American_relations

Venezuela had a short live coup back in 2002 which was immediately recognized by the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_coup_attempt_of_2002

I see communist prevent to also be a business issue. US companies couldn't very well start up their factories in those countries.

But the thing about renewables is that they are here already or could be if we actually tried. Protecting them is part and parcel with protecting the rest of America.

Re:No Surprises Here

[Doc Ruby]

Except we don't just buy oil. We spend $TRILLIONS keeping the global oil production set up the way it is, enforced by our military. Then we buy it in the market we create with that military. So we do both. Meanwhile, our constant wars (and wars by proxy, eg. in Israel) keep the market prices high, though the cost to the producers themselves is low.

The cost of protecting renewable energy is very small. The military/intel budget would need to be only $150-200B annually for everything ($200B / everything), but tops $1T annually to enforce our global oil market system ($1T - $200B).

Where is the sense of proportion when coming up with these false equivalencies which are totally different scales on either size of the "equals" sign?

Re:No Surprises Here

[NatasRevol]

Not sure how my comment is flamebait.

Bush 2 increased the national debt from ~$6T to ~$11T.

http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

Second only to Reagan, and just ahead of his father in terms of percentage increase.

Re:No Surprises Here

[Phil-14]

Ah, so Joe Stripper Well Operator in Oklahoma should be paying more in royalties (or closing down his well, the more likely course of action) because even though the lower royalties mean it stays open and the government _gets_ more money than if it closed, we're going to call that "subsidies" and say he's not paying his fair share of the military costs involved with us buying the oil from Iraq instead of Oklahoma...

Re:No Surprises Here

[Doc Ruby]

Your convoluted argument says:

1: I said operators should be paying more in royalties.
2: If oil producers paid more royalties, they'd go out of business.
3: The government collects more money when it collects less money.

First, I never said operators should be paying more in royalties. All I said was that, contrary to the post to which I replied, the oil industry does indeed consume a vast amount more military budget than alternatives do. Which was obvious, but the comment to which I replied tried the usual smokescreen of false equivalencies between items in the same quantity, but vastly different proportion.

Second, oil producers are in no danger of going out of business. But indeed if they were not able to operate because the costs are too high, that's the economics. Obviously, since alternatives are not going out of business despite their vastly lower subsidies, the economics would favor the alternatives, and who cares if the filthy old oil drillers are replaced by something sustainable. Of course, far before that point the profit that's something like $60 of the $75 per barrel price after the current $15 production/delivery cost - 80% profit - would be cut, as the oil market price is capped by how much people will pay, not how much it costs to sell it to them. And again, there's no danger of oil producers going out of business.

Third, you're arguing in favor of some kind of "Laffer curve", the totally discredited (by 40 years of Republicans treating it as gospel, and destroying the government's revenue model with it) economic fallacy. Lowering the rate of taxation always lowers the amount of tax collected, as is perfectly obvious, except at the impossible extremes of 0% and 100%.

Re:No Surprises Here

[Ol Biscuitbarrel]

Any evidence to back this up? Or are you just guessing?

I think it's the latter, plus a bit of the former. ;) This post has a chart of subsidies of various energy firms. This post with punny headline states the case for marginal producers: Vladimir's Energy Blog - Obama’s Energy Tax Will Even Tax Strippers TIME had this also LOL (unintended, I assume) headline in 1944: OIL: Subsidy for Strippers. "I call for a fixed deductable on pasties!"

Little of the subsidy cash would go to the big integrated companies. (They and the Oil Congressmen prefer Mr. Ickes' plan for a price boost.) OPA tailored its plan to fit only the small operators of the 200,000 "stripper" wells—the marginal producers who turn out some 15% of all U.S. oil. Squeezed between rising costs and OPA's ceilings many a stripper has been forced to plug his wells and go out of business. And once plugged, the wells are often ruined by salt water seepage.

So even 66 years ago these minor operators were making a substantial contribution to supply, and wanted some assistance to make their operations economical. We could have told them to just take it up the hindquarters of course, but that was way ahead of real consideration of the negative implications of using hydrocarbons. No other nation has drilled anything like the number of wells the US has: Distribution and Production of Oil & Gas Wells. Wells long given up for dead are reopened when the price rises high enough; some of the oldest in the country were fired up in 2008 when the price was on its uptick. We could repeal subsidies, but then the US would have to import more to make up for lost domestic production, putting us in competition with other nations and driving the price up to the point where the wells would be economical again anyway...likely there's a sweet spot somewhere. I'm not in favor of subsidizing the majors much, either. But these small fry are worth helping out while we transition away to something better. I'm waiting for the NOCs around the world to follow the US example, if that's possible given their societal constraints. Seems like a surefire way to boost their production and mitigate their declines a titch.

Re:No Surprises Here

[slick7]

The taxes paid by the FF industry...dwarf the subsidies they receive, however.

Any evidence to back this up? Or are you just guessing?

There are more tax deductions for corporations than for individuals, on top of subsidies. Break the political-corporate financial bond, if you can, and there may be some equity (don't hold your breath).

Re:No Surprises Here

[slick7]

I'm sure subsidies are somewhat wrapped up in the $13Trillion in US national debt. Most of which was brought about by the Bush 2 administration who had direct ties to the oil industry.

There is no debt. Fractional reserve banking is based on fiat paper with no hard currency backing. Go ahead and believe the FED stooges,they will be laughing all the way to their bank while you sit in a cave near a smokey camp fire. Mommy I'm hungry.

Re:No Surprises Here

[akb]

Before Gulf War I George HW Bush said that protecting Kuwait was in our vital national interest. What was that vital national interest? What is the vital national interest that had US troops in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc before 9/11?

We already only get a small amount of oil that is actually shipped from the Middle East. However, since oil is a global commodity interruption in the flow from any of the major exporters would have global consequences, as we've seen whenever there's been a hint of conflict in the Middle East.

Re:No Surprises Here

[budgenator]

Maybe it's because the Military uses boat-loads of fossil fuel during it's operations, especially naval, air and air-mobile ops. Still it seems hookey to include military ops as a subsidy for FF industry. It also seems that organizations coming from a political or an advocacy point of view play fast and loose with the definition of subsidy.

Re:No Surprises Here

[Anonymous Coward]

"There's no where near a concerted effort to develop alternative energy in the US"

Yes, but there's also no NEED for the government to take a role in this either. Much of the lack of effort is because of the ability of people to easily talk about how great renewables are, as long as someone else's money is funding their potential as research.

Among all the belly-aching pro-renewables friends I have, do you know who are the ones with the solar cells, wind powered water pumps, wind turbines on the garages? Yeah, my conservative friends. The houses with geothermal pumps? The
"McMansions" (since people like to link them with conservative and business types).

Oh, sorry, I forgot, more liberal friends drive the Prius. Whoops, sorry, got that wrong, a higher percentage of my conservative friends drive hybrids and fuel efficient cars.

Most alterative energy people have no business sense or an overweighted one and have come to rely on big business instead of doing things themselves. The only instance I've seen otherwise is the biodiesel community.

I see a lot of /. stories about new renewable tech that never make the light of day. One of the reasons for the lock on renewables is rather simple that /. readers should be damn familiar with--every new solution is turned into intellectual property and thus made restricted immediately as a possible solution to the masses. Someone wants to be paid. While that's okay, IP makes the business bargaining immediately a jail against adoption, due to patent law itself. Fossil fuels, on the other hand, have been around for awhile and as a strict fuel source, there isn't much IP locking it's usage. Fossil fuels have a developed competition, while renewables can't find their own @ss. There are hundreds of potential business schemes to offshore renewables instead of waiting for permits, different battery tech, reformation techniques, etc. to make them viable, but no one has done it even though it works on paper, because they know they'll get owned in the marketplace or they themselves are doubters of the tech they are talking about pushing on the rest of us.

Set your damn wind farm beyond the economic zone of the United States, store the energy, then ship the damn thing in. You don't want to. You whine instead that you've been stopped, often by your own environmental friends worried about beach habitats.

If you want to use the latest most efficient solar cell, be prepared to pay out of the nose for some lenses, a helium based stirling engine, and the design. Plus installation, permit fees (fixed installation is a code issue). And the delay and wait. Meanwhile, I can buy a 6hp honda clone "blue" gasoline engine at a local importer for $100 today that's down the street or a few cities over, that burns gasoline available at the, oh, 4 gas stations within 5 miles of me. Or convert it to a natural gas or propane burner and increase it's utility to the 4 propane locations near me. Or just grab a generator set at the 10 farm supply stores or 3 major hardware stores nearby.

As a conservative, I'm with you on removing the damn subsidies. I'm sick of subsidies. I'm not in the "let the free market decide," instead I'm more about a level playing field and, more so, keeping government involvement small.

Oh, and that's the other reason too--fossil fuel tax. Nearly every fossil fuel is taxed somewhere along the way. Goes into the government coffers, state and federal especially. The govs lose all that with most renewables. So the big government types, well, to keep that government big, you depend on fossil fuels as additional tax revenue. Not much revenue if everyone goes geothermal and solar and wind.

When was the last time you saw a politician first use renewables before they made it a political note? I like certain hollywood types that at least use them on their homes before they hope everyone else uses them. But it's not like most Democrats installed their own stuff before they wan

Re:No Surprises Here

[owski]

I heard a great quote from an economist that is related here, "You wouldn't have to subsidize public transportation if you'd stop subsidizing private transportation [roads, mainly.]" It's not literally true, but it makes a good point.

Re:No Surprises Here

[owski]

And the same people who believe the free market should determine everything about our lives also believe those subsidies to oil companies are absolutely necessary.

That's the conservatives who pretend to like the free market. Libertarian organizations, such as Cato, are strongly opposed to these subsidies.

When someone claims to be a free market advocate, it's easy to test with something like this. Most of the time, they're liars.

Re:No Surprises Here

[cheesybagel]

You can have a disaster happen with any other form of energy. Imagine a wind turbine blade snapping off and hitting someone. Or the pond wastes from silicon processing (it is cheap to wash them off with sulfuric acid) which are polluting large parts of China as we speak. The reason for getting alternative energy is not the environment. If it was about the environment we would all be using nuclear power by now, which has been the safest in terms of kWh produced. Or we would have already upgraded uranium separation (if you need less energy to separate uranium, you get more energy out in the process), as well as fuel reprocessing facilities. Nope. It is a matter of energy security. Simple as that. With hydroelectric power from Canada, plus newly found natural gas reserves, tar sands, and perhaps oil shale in the future, we will be using fossil fuels for a long, long time.

Solar and wind power are fine. Wind is a worthwhile investment, even without subsidies. It was used, together with hydroelectric, to power the European economy from the Middle Ages to the Industrial Revolution. It was cheap enough then and is now. The problem with wind (or solar) is that these sources are intermittent, which was the main reason for them falling out of favor in the first place. Oh and BP does have substantial renewable energy investments, including in both solar and wind power. It is the universe's way to follow the path of least resistance, the path of lower energy cost. So it is that naturally the most energetically efficient forms of energy will be explored first and foremost if you examine things on the long range, even if there are localized bubbles here and there in the short term. One of them being corn ethanol.

Re:No Surprises Here

[cheesybagel]

The issue is that there is basically no way companies focused solely on stock market performance will do massive investments. Especially not on long term projects which may show limited returns compared to, you know, hedge funds, buying gold, or building houses no one wants to buy. Check out the major US auto manufacturers. The only one which has managed to stay reasonably in shape is still family controlled to a large degree.

As for the military contractors, it has been painfully obvious that the main issue was the governments insistence on reducing the number of units ordered, as well as the amount of contracts per project, thereby decreasing the number of existing military contractors. This has usually resulted in a duopoly, and sometimes monopoly, on military hardware. While in the past the state actually bothered to try to keep more contractors around, so costs per unit came down due to competition.

Re:No Surprises Here

[cheesybagel]

Japan rebuilt its economy after WWII using fiat paper, after they were forced to give back all the gold they had confiscated during their invasions in Asia. It worked pretty well for a reasonable amount of time. Gold is useful as an exchange medium because it represents something of actual value. It takes a supernova explosion to create it. However our wealth does not come from something like gold, but actual human effort multiplied by available tools. If you take that into consideration the US has considerable human capital. It just needs to put it to good use.

Re:No Surprises Here

[Crypto Gnome]

So you're completely ignoring the many and various wars that the US is currently involved in, which THE PRESIDENT (er, at the time) characterized as "securing ongoing access to oil resources".

THAT, dear reader, is WHY "military expenses" are considered to be a subsidy for fossil fuels.

Re:No Surprises Here

[Anonymous Coward]

They aren't including military expenses. If they did, it would be higher. This is the world wide total of subsidies. That will include places like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia where fuel is sold for a few pennies a gallon. This article is a couple of years old, but still probably somewhat accurate.

http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2008/06/01/fun_with_fuel_s.html

Re:No Surprises Here

[slick7]

It just needs to put it to good use.

The operative words being - to good use -. When bankers take peoples houses, when industries put people on the street for more profit overseas human capital sounds like slavery. China and India seem to have cornered the market on that account. When people can just be thrown away like so much trash, there appears to be a fundamental flaw in the business model. Gold is not the only precious metal. Any metal that has an intrinsic value in industry is a candidate. Money today is used for achieving power and wealth far beyond the necessities of life. The persons wielding this power wield it for their own benefit regardless of who gets hurt or whether it benefits all.

Re:No Surprises Here

[TastyCakes]

Alternative energy sources would absolutely be in America's favor, and I agree that the US government should probably increase its efforts to encourage them.
But the fact is that right now the country and its economy are inextricably linked with oil for transportation and coal for electricity. Right now any disruption to either of those would have serious consequences for the lives of most Americans. In the case of coal, domestic supply is more than enough to satisfy America's demand for many decades, but oil supply is much more vulnerable since so much of it is imported, and some of that comes from places that are unstable or not particularly friendly to the US. That is why the US government thinks supporting the domestic oil industry is a good idea: oil is currently a critical commodity, and encouraging as much domestic production as possible makes that commodity safer.
In the future, should renewables come to play a significant role in America's energy mix, I would expect the government to take similar interest in securing its supply. But at present this is hypothetical - renewable energy is simply not critical to America's economy like oil is. Now you'll probably think this is a chicken and egg situation - that if renewable energy isn't big enough to be critical it won't receive enough help to make it bigger and fossil fuels will continue their dominance out of a kind of "too big to fail" mentality. And I agree, those dynamics are there. But I think righting these imbalances without causing a large disruption in American lives is going to take many years.
I disagree with your implication that renewable sources haven't been widely implemented because they aren't controlled by big oil companies. They haven't been widely implemented because, despite very direct and significant subsidies, they remain more expensive than fossil fuels. BP, Exxon and everyone else don't get "hugely rich" off of solar energy because nobody does: solar energy is not competitive, and if they don't make money off of it, private corporations can't be expected to plow money into it.

Re:No Surprises Here

[commodore64_love]

We've been involved in the Mideast since World War 1. It had nothing to do with oil, but as part of the anti-Germany campaign. Then we withdrew and returned again during WW2, and we never bothered to withdraw. Instead we decided to become Israel's ally and protector.

And now we're "stuck" there. Even if we discovered our way to run our cars on hydrogen, we'd still be involved in the Mideast because we stupidly stick our noses (and bases) where they don't belong (Mideast, EU, Russia, Japan, China).

Re:No Surprises Here

[Anonymous Coward]

All part of the re-feudelization of society and systematically erasing the gains of the various anti-aristocratic revolutions that we are all so proud of. Its all about diverting public wealth into the well-connected hands of the few. To some extent the militias are right, we may need another revolution to stop this. Oh, the politicians (especially on the right) may posture about free markets and so forth but I suspect that is really code for changing things so THEIR buddies can profit. It should be obvious to everyone that with massive subsidies from the taxpayer available to them there is nothing free about energy or financial markets.

Re:No Surprises Here

[PopeRatzo]

As for the military contractors, it has been painfully obvious that the main issue was the governments insistence on reducing the number of units ordered, as well as the amount of contracts per project, thereby decreasing the number of existing military contractors.

So it's the government's fault for not making contracts that are lucrative enough for the military contractors.

OK.

Re:No Surprises Here

[PopeRatzo]

Yes, but there's also no NEED for the government to take a role in this either.

We should just let the "free market" work and BP will come up with a solution that will put them out of business.

Can you point to one single technological advance that has occurred since 1900 that was thanks to the "free market"? (note: this is a trick question because there has never been such a thing as a "free market". Not on Earth at least.)

Re:No Surprises Here

[PopeRatzo]

You can have a disaster happen with any other form of energy. Imagine a wind turbine blade snapping off and hitting someone

Right. And you could have someone driving to work at the solar energy plant and he drives into a train carrying poisonous gas and it would also be a disaster.

Oh and BP does have substantial renewable energy investments, including in both solar and wind power

Most of their investment has been in patents on solar and wind power technologies. Gee, I wonder how that's gonna turn out.

Re:No Surprises Here

[PopeRatzo]

But the fact is that right now the country and its economy are inextricably linked with oil for transportation and coal for electricity.

>In 1960, when John Kennedy said "We're going to the Moon" there was no technology that was gonna take anyone there, right now. "Right now" is not what R&D are about.

If we wait until we're not reliant on fossil fuels to start serious development, "right now" is never going to come.

That's what the fossil fuel industry is counting on. Then, they'll step in with some other meter-friendly system of energy and we'll be saying "too bad we didn't start the solar development forty years ago" the same way we're saying it now.

Remember Ronald Reagan having the solar panels ripped off the roof of the White House? I hope that cocksucker is burning in Hell. I'm willing to believe in Hell if only to believe he's burning there.

Re:No Surprises Here

[TastyCakes]

I'm trying to explain to you why oil and gas subsidies exist in the US. I can understand that you are upset at what you see as half-hearted support of alternative energy in the country. But when you go off ranting about Reagan, a man that hasn't been in power in 20 years, I think your argument loses some cogency.
In the real world, alternative energy is still not at a stage of development where it can replace fossil fuels in America, least of all solar. Should the government encourage work to get it to the point where it can? Absolutely, although I think assuming it's a technological challenge that can be solved just by throwing tax payer money at it, like the Apollo program was, is simplistic. Apollo, as huge an undertaking as it was, was nowhere near as ambitious as changing how all Americans power their lives.
But at the same time that the government are encouraging development of renewable energy technology, I think they would be unwise not to acknowledge oil and coal's tremendous importance to the lives of its citizens. That acknowledgment makes people like you angry, and I can appreciate that, but in my opinion shitting all over the domestic oil industry is not an intelligent solution to America's energy problems.

Re:No Surprises Here

[PopeRatzo]

in my opinion shitting all over the domestic oil industry is not an intelligent solution to America's energy problems.

Are fat government subsidies on top of hundred billion dollar profits "shitting on"?

Re:No Surprises Here

[TastyCakes]

As I try to point out in my first post above, I think it is a stretch to call the government policies most beneficial to oil companies, royalty reductions for certain types of wells, "fat subsidies". But yes, royalty hikes would harm the industry and, at least in the short term, America's energy situation.
On another related point: the profitability of the oil industry is often exaggerated or taken out of context. Specifically, their profit margins are not widely known. While US oil companies do make many billions of dollars of profit, this is on even larger amounts of revenue, as this Congressional Research Service report shows, oil industry profits for the ten largest oil companies in America were on average 8% of revenue, well below many other industries such as banks, drug companies, tech companies and even food companies.
This is because the oil industry requires huge capital investments, all the while paying large royalties and more tax than they make profit. For reasons I believe become clear at that site, the argument that US state and federal governments are not getting their fair cut from the oil industry just doesn't hold water.

Re:No Surprises Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Oil is traded on the world market. Canada, UK, Russia et al will sell it to the highest bidder. The US needs some way to make sure it is the highest bidder, and its protection racket ("sell to us and we'll regard you as a friendly country and leave you out of the bombing rota") is an important bargaining chip.

And in the case of Russia, every barrel the US buys is more or less directly subsidizing the development of a distinctly unfriendly military power. Russia has a track record of using its energy reserves as leverage against its neighbors and trading partners. It's not pleasant to be on the receiving end of that.

Re:No Surprises Here

[mjwx]

This is known as a "market economy," and it encourages things like efficiency, and matching the supply to the demand.

It's so cute when people actually believe this.

A market will charge what it's customers will pay. When you have no competition or can collude with the limited competition you can charge what you like. High cost of entry makes it easy to prevent competitors from establishing themselves.

With energy, they pretty much have you by the short hairs, you'll pay as you need electricity. If anything this will lead to a price hike and people scale back on the amount of energy they use (reduction in energy use is not a bad thing) which will lead to another price hike to cover losses from people scaling back consumption. In Western Australia we received a 60-80% increase in electrical costs this year, experts predicted last year due to a series of incidents (an Apache LNG pipeline exploded) prices would raise by a maximum of 20%, the government took the leash of the privatised electricity company and many people's electricity bill doubled.

I agree that subsidies are not a good thing, but when a single player or a small group of players control a significant majority of the supply the free market or market economy does not exist.

Re:No Surprises Here

[davidbofinger]

The US government wants to encourage as much domestic production as is reasonably possible

It's not obvious to me the US government should want to maximise production. If we extract oil as soon as it's economical at zero royalty then we're effectively throwing the oil away because we're paying as much to extract it as it's worth to us when we have. If we wait, perhaps technology will make that oil extractable at lower cost and we'll be able to get real value from it. Perhaps they should be striving to maximise some other metric.

Re:No Surprises Here

[TastyCakes]

That's true, and there's a train of thought even within the oil industry that the US should bottle up its production and just use the rest of the world's oil until it really needs it, viewing the whole domestic resource as a sort of strategic petroleum reserve. Many people believe that in 50 years, say, oil will be much more valuable than it is today, and that at today's prices America is getting a bargain on oil imports. And it's not just for the US that such thoughts have been aired; one of the (many) things that Mosaddegh said that agitated the US and Britain was along the lines of "I'll shut our oil in and leave it for future generations to prosper from rather than have you exploit us".

Re:No Surprises Here

[Monchanger]

I, as an individual, get close to ZERO subsidies!

You're doing it wrong.

Government subsidize things it wants to, based on either its philosophy (includes both economic and moral reasons) or influence (both from lobbying & constituency). The current administration is pushing green industry, the previous big business and the rich.

Apparently, you're not doing anything the government likes (or possibly oblivious that you actually do). You've got a few options:
1) Change the government by voting for a third party
2) Change government's influence by not supporting corporations who lobby or lobbying yourself
3) Change how you spend your money to take advantage of subsidies
4) Live off the land and don't pay taxes. But if you do, try not to use services I'm paying for

Your choice.

Re:No Surprises Here

[sjames]

Note how when oil was just the gunk we got when we drilled for water, we lost interest in the Middle East as soon as Germany was defeated. Note then how when it's value became apparent, our interest increased greatly. Note how little our current actions have to do with Israel's well-being.

It wasn't until Iranian politics started interfering with the oil that the United States crossed the line and deposed an elected foreign government. All of our modern problems with Iran are a direct result of that action.

If Israel's well-being was our only interest there, we'd do what we usually do in such a situation: arm them to the teeth, offer military training, and possibly open a base there.

Re:No Surprises Here

[TheRaven64]

You're assuming that electricity consumption is a fixed. I just moved house and bought a load of electrical goods. Each one had a rated energy consumption. Retailers included the cost of operation, given a specified electricity cost. For example, the cost of leaving a fridge on for a year. I bought a slightly more expensive one, because the cost of owning the cheapest one for a year made it more expensive - after two years it was an even bigger difference, and so on. You can't even buy ones as inefficient as the one in my last house anymore - they'd have to pay you to install one for the cost of owning it over its lifetime to be cheaper than one of the newer models.

If electricity had been cheaper, there would have been no financial incentive to buy the more efficient ones, and so there would have been no incentive for manufacturers to increase efficiency. Higher energy prices translate to increased demand for energy-efficient appliances, stimulating these industries. This is why cars designed outside the USA tend to be more efficient. When you're paying $7/gallon, there's a much greater incentive to buy a fuel-efficient car than when you're paying $2.50.

Re:No Surprises Here

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure the supply would last very long, either... it might only be a short-term solution.

Re:No Surprises Here

[mjwx]

You're assuming that electricity consumption is a fixed. I just moved house and bought a load of electrical goods.

No I am not. I think quoting myself in this case is not too self adsorbed.

If anything this will lead to a price hike and people scale back on the amount of energy they use (reduction in energy use is not a bad thing)

What I said was, people need electricity. And given the fact that power generation is a very expensive market to get into it can not be very competitive a "free" market scenario will lead to a few companies controlling the price for power. Remember the phrase "what the market will bear" means, to a CxO what is the maximum I can charge before it hits the bottom line and when you control 80% of a product or service that ceiling is quite high.

If electricity had been cheaper, there would have been no financial incentive to buy the more efficient ones, and so there would have been no incentive for manufacturers to increase efficiency.

Not that I disagree with your supposition, but it's a tangent that does not relate to my post. The "free" market cannot be relied upon to "fix" electricity costs (by fix I mean lower or produce them at the lowest possible price point) because free market forces does not apply to monopoly or cartel situations.

You forget that when electricity was significantly cheaper, there was demand for low TPD electronics. The ratings system first appeared on fridges and washing machines in Australia in 1993. The desire to lower operating costs has always been a significant driver, not just because of energy costs. The same with fuel efficient cars, only now the big block V8's have lost popularity, this is a cultural thing rather then an energy thing, the big block V8 crowd gets smaller each year.

Re:No Surprises Here

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a rather stupid thing for an economist to say considering the benefits of a good road network to the economy. Perhaps he was only saying it to make a point and didn't believe it was actually appropriate to do it, but he maybe could have picked a better example to make his point.

Re:No Surprises Here

[cheesybagel]

No. The problem is the government keeps trying to use one model of airplane, or whatever, to do everything. This often results in long and protracted design cycles producing something which does work well at doing anything (e.g. Space Shuttle). It also starves the other companies in the sector and helps create self perpetuating defense monopolies.

Take the F-35. Had they separated the air force model from the naval and marine versions I bet it would be in service already and cost a lot less per unit. It would also feed an actual market of design companies, which would compete for contracts in the future, instead of spoon feeding it all on Lockheed Martin. For the same cost. All that would be necessary is for the aircraft to use the same engines and simplified electronics. Those are most of the design cost to begin with.

Re:No Surprises Here

[cheesybagel]

BP also finances many projects on wind and solar. Actual generating installations, rather than producing the components. Like wind farms.

Meanwhile...

[Anonymous Coward]

My dwarves in Dwarf Fortress laugh at the Human races inability to use lava as a power source.

(fossil fuel subsidies) (dwarf support) for

[Anonymous Coward]

What a difficult title to parse!

Get out Republicans!

[Anonymous Coward]

We Democrats got the power we need to make all the changes we want!

18 months later and we're promising a Utopia while the tax payers' hard earned wages are bleeding money into the corporate welfare coffers.

Re:Get out Republicans!

[Anonymous Coward]

New admin is the same as the last; help the corps; Show no backbone to do what is in the nation's need.

Priorities

[Voline]

To help the now-wealthy to become yet more wealthy, or help all of humanity to avert climate disaster and live in a cleaner environment? Hmmmm decisions, decisions ...

Re:Priorities

[piotru]

Right, the case of an african doctor donated a solar cell. Just enough energy to either keep refrigerator (storing vaccines) running, or switch on the energy-saving bulb to vaccinate people. Decisions, decisions...
For the same money many doctors could receive the combustion generators with fuel supplies and never worry for the wattage of their fridges.
This is what happens in the Real World when ideologists try bending the world to the phantoms of their imagination.

Re:Priorities

[Garble Snarky]

You have a valid point, but your scenario is much more of a short-term problem. Millions of people can keep dying from preventable illnesses in developing countries, and that would still not be as bad as the supposed inevitable catastrophes of climate change.

Save millions of lives now with combustion generators, or save millions of lives plus every coastal city 100 years from now with more renewable energy plants and research?

Re:Priorities

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, well. Like... we're talking about two different countries here? By naming convention, two different worlds, even? Why are you even dragging this totally unrelated piece of spin into this? Isn't there a fallacy name for this? Or do you somehow think the money saved by GP's now-wealthy would find its way to the African doctor?

This is what happens when in any world people like you start buying into the shit PR people invent to spin profiteering at any price as beneficial to development nations.

Re:Priorities

[tmosley]

Right, because no one ever went from being poor to being wealthy. Ever.

What you really want, even if you don't realize it, is a return to serfdom. A few ultra wealthy insiders get to trade carbon credits and redirect the wealth of all nations into their own pockets and everyone else is impoverished and living in shit and filth when the sanitation systems stop working and you have used up all the world's capital on your stupid schemes. Ah to breath the "clean", shit-smelling air and drink water from a cholera infested well! At least the rich will still be living it up, since thier life expectancy will only drop by30 years as opposed to everyone else's who drops 40-50 years.

Re:Priorities

[khallow]

To help the now-wealthy to become yet more wealthy, or help all of humanity to avert climate disaster and live in a cleaner environment? Hmmmm decisions, decisions ...

Now here's the challenge. What policy actually would do what Voline wants?

Re:Priorities

[OnePumpChump]

500 billion in petroleum subsidies would allow you to do both.

Re:Priorities

[dkleinsc]

Leader of Senate: All fellow members of the Roman senate hear me. Shall we continue to build palace after palace for the rich? Or shall we aspire to a more noble purpose and build decent housing for the poor? How does the senate vote?
Entire Senate: FUCK THE POOR!
Leader: Good.

Re:Priorities

[TheLink]

Hey I'm all for "fuck the poor" as long as I get a say in who fucks me and the rich hot babe actually wants to :).

But until such policies get introduced, it looks like I'll remain a poor slashdot virgin :(.

Re:Priorities

[riverat1]

The solar cell keeps working for 20 or 30 years whenever the Sun shines. With a combustion generator you're buying fuel all the time plus they require a much higher level of maintenance than a solar cell. The question is what is your total cost over the life of the project.

Re:Priorities

[Anonymous Coward]

To help the now-wealthy to become yet more wealthy, or help all of humanity to avert climate disaster and live in a cleaner environment? Hmmmm decisions, decisions ...

You can make all the difference. Just turn off your water when you brush and compost your garbage... suckers.

One less counter-argument...

[FreeFuture]

Wonder why I never thought of that! This should put to rest one of the main counter-arguments against renewables. 'But solar will never be competitive if there wasn't any subsidies...'

Now this makes me wonder how much I'd be paying for my gas without these hidden subsidies. Europe pays a lot more per gallon, between 2-3 times, and most every other country, except the producers, pays more.

Re:One less counter-argument...

[ickleberry]

Here in ireland the refinery price for petrol is ~42c per litre. But with tax, transport, more tax and whatever the petrol station adds onto the price it costs 1.27e to 1.37e per litre.

There are 3 separate taxes on petrol - excise which is like a 'sin tax' is about 60c, VAT is just over 20c and a ~5c 'carbon tax'. Ethanol isn't subsidised but has a reduced excise tax.

So you probably wouldn't be paying all *that* much for it if you weren't being taxed to the hilt

Re:One less counter-argument...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have tax-financed roads and highways? Tax-financed or government mandated parking garages in new buildings? Tax-financed ports and refineries?

There are so many areas where the government can interfere that it is very hard for the average journalist to get to the bottom of which way the government interference in the economy is leaning. You basically need a PhD in "government science" and a team of dedicated researchers to understand how the system works. For example, the Swedish government does not know how many government agencies it has, only that the number is between something like 500 and 600. The government created a new agency with a mission to investigate the matter...

Re:One less counter-argument...

[16384]

They'll always tax everything they can. Or, do you think that if a renewable energy starts getting a dominant position it won't be heavily taxed?

Re:One less counter-argument...

[modmans2ndcoming]

yeah... if only we could live in societies that did not need governance.

Re:One less counter-argument...

[ShooterNeo]

And the ironic part is that the Swedish government is world renowned for being a model of efficiency...

Re:One less counter-argument...

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll always tax everything they can.

Except, of course, religious institutions.

Re:One less counter-argument...

[FlyMysticalDJ]

If I worship an ancient sun god and believe that the way to become closer to that god is to capture and use as much of his loving energy as possible, can I have tax free renewable energy?

Why!?

[Windwraith]

Why does that title make me think of Dwarf Fortress...?
Let's bug ToadyOne about fossil fuels. Ooooh yeaah.

Where is the study?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be interesting to see how the fossil fuel subsidy number was calculated. Even assuming the calculation is accurate, I'm not sure I buy the argument that renewable energy would be more economically viable than fossil fuels if not for government intervention. The article ignores taxes on fossil fuels, which I'm sure would dwarf any subsidies.

Re:Where is the study?

[Anonymous Coward]

The article ignores taxes on fossil fuels,

Yes, and that fact alone makes it obvious that this "study" is a cry wolf con-job by green politicans who wants more votes, even if it takes lying.

Re:Where is the study?

[maxume]

The article says it is from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. You have to pay them money to get it.

Re:Where is the study?

[BlueStrat]

The article ignores taxes on fossil fuels, which I'm sure would dwarf any subsidies.

It appears the article shares this blind spot with many pushing the "green economy" both in and out of government.

Pushing adoption of non-fossil fuels & renewable energy tech before costs and efficiencies have reached a rough parity with our current methods & sources adds a crippling cost penalty to the economy and society in myriad ways from transportation and healthcare costs to food costs, interest rates, and tax revenues...pretty much touching everything to a greater or lesser degree.

When non-fossil fuels & renewable energy tech gets developed to the point that it's cost efficient enough to compete in our economy, business will invest and people will buy just as happened with the automobile and many others. This is what drove the US into an economic & trade superpower and gave it's people the world's highest standard of living. The push for non-fossil fuels and renewable energy tech dumps crippling extra costs on the economy (and ultimately on individuals) in many forms as the necessary trade-off for forcing adoption before it is actually economically viable.

It will require a reduction in everyone's standard of living in rough parallel with how much extra burden it puts on the economy which is related to how fast/how early the adoption occurs, and the health of the economy at the outset. Looking at current economic conditions, is this wise?

I'd love to zip around in an electric or hydrogen (oops, that got scrapped) car recharged from solar and/or wind generation, but the tech and the infrastructure just isn't "there" yet. I particularly don't want to finance them at such high relative costs on the backs of current and following generations' standard of living.

Strat

Re:Where is the study?

[WindBourne]

Not even CLOSE to accurate.
How much money is paid for the right to DUMP pollution in the air in the burning? Nothing. We have a couple of 100 fires in old coal mines that the company that created the mine does not have to stop (too expensive). Both pollutions are HUGE. And how much is paid to offset it? Nothing by the power companies.

How much money is paid by Power companies for the right to send out mercury? The vast majority of mercury that is emitted by man is from power plants. In fact, out here in West USA, nearly all of the mercury in our waters come from power plant emission, or in a few areas, from old mining tailings.

The money that BP will pay for the gulf is but a fraction of the damage that it caused. Exxon paid very little of the clean-up in Alaska. And Nigeria has large amounts of environmental damage, all caused by oil companies that do not care about spills.

In addition the taxes that will be paid on the oil that will likely be sold elsewhere (such as Alaska oil) is a pittance compared to how much we are stealing from out children.

Finally, the thought that we burn oil is just amazing to me. Oil truely is one of the worlds wonder chemicals. It permeates our society in every aspect. Yet, we throw away the majority, and really do not pay but a fraction of the real costs of burning oil and coal. It is time to stop this for our national security.

Re:Where is the study?

[BigSlowTarget]

A quick search found this $557 billion is primarily from China, Venezuela, Egypt Iraq and Iran consumer subsidies. When the government owns the oil company the subsidy is not making the owner rich. It might help the less well off more than the better off through reduction of gas costs but study results seem mixed.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-07/ending-fossil-fuel-aid-will-cut-oil-demand-iea-says-update1-.html

The number $557 came from the IEA

http://www.iea.org/files/energy_subsidies.pdf

Re:Where is the study?

[rbrander]

The taxes on oil primarily are taxes on gasoline and diesel for consumer use - as farmers know, industrial use is not so much. The taxes on coal are a joke. I googled the words "taxes coal" and came up with this news story from Tennessee, 2008:

"The state coal tax is currently set at 20 cents per ton and has not been increased since 1984.

As introduced, the bill would have set the tax at 4.5 percent of gross value, which Jackson said is the same rate charged in neighboring Kentucky. Members of the Senate Tax Subcommittee suggested the levy was too high at an earlier meeting and presented an amendment Tuesday that calls for a two-step increase to 3 percent." ...while that $557B comes to about 14% of worldwide spending on oil & coal, based (roughly) on the Wikipedia articles.

I'm sure that on the whole, more is taken from than given to the fossil-fuel industries, but the subsidies, as another poster mentioned mostly in Asia, mean that world-wide, the "pressure" on the whole industry is much lighter than most would assume.

It's not that renewables are economically viable in any situation where the fossil-fuel industries don't have to pay for their externalities; it's a way of highlighting that far from bringing in those externalities in the form of a tax or fund or cap or any other restriction, we are taxing their use at all, very lightly.

The moment all the subsidies stop and something like $50/T (C) is imposed on digging or pumping carbon out of the ground (and $50/T is paid to those who put it in), the game is pretty much up for fossil, save where gas/kerosene/diesel are the only way to go for high-energy density (aviation, remote cabins).

Subsidies are not just there because of lobbying and power, though - subsidizing cheap energy is a great economic stimulus in general, which is why you find it in new, growing, developing economies especially. Which is the heart of the warming issue: if "saving the world" involves telling a couple of billion Asians to spend an extra generation in poverty, is it worth it?

Re:Where is the study?

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole point is why is an industry that is so insanely profitable receiving subsidies in the first place? One day we will need alternative forms whether you care about the environment or not. I'm also including things like all the lovely oil spills. The fossil fuel companies don't need the support it's just free money to them. The money is better spent on the future of power and the name fossil fuels should tell you they aren't making anymore so one day we'll need something else. If you don't believe the alternative sources deserve it then can we agree the fossil fuel companies certainly don't? This is corporate welfare, period.

Re:Where is the study?

[T Murphy]

Mentioning taxes, wind turbines in the US currently get highly favorable depreciation rules, which I expect are not accounted for in the numbers in the article. Given just in Indiana I've seen several new, large wind farms (and they're still building), I expect the indirect subsidy with the depreciation is a considerable number. (If someone does the research on this, mod him up).

Re:Where is the study?

[mrchaotica]

It will require a reduction in everyone's standard of living in rough parallel with how much extra burden it puts on the economy which is related to how fast/how early the adoption occurs, and the health of the economy at the outset. Looking at current economic conditions, is this wise?

If its cost is cheaper than building levees around New York, Miami, and all the other coastal cities that'll be underwater in a few decades, then yes, it's wise!

Re:Where is the study?

[BlueStrat]

If its cost is cheaper than building levees around New York, Miami, and all the other coastal cities that'll be underwater in a few decades, then yes, it's wise!

What will it matter what happens in a few decades to the sea level if the US goes into economic collapse in the next 3-10 years or even sooner, which we are in danger of currently even without adding more stress to our economy? If that happens, there won't be any government enforcement of environmental protections...or much of anything else, for that matter.

Of course, the mass starvation and chaos & violence on the streets that would follow such a collapse *would* serve to reduce population pressures on the environment. Between mass exodus from urban centers as food distribution collapses and the death tolls from starvation & unchecked violence there might be so few left in large US coastal cities like NYC that it won't matter.

Strat

Re:Where is the study?

[sourcerror]

Oil is subsidized where there's a lot of it, like arab countries.

Article is very low on details

[mano the shark]

The article gives almost no information about what the funding is used for other than: renewable good, fossil fuels bad. If you look at the current renewable power production in the US it is 7% of the total and coincidentally the total funding worldwide for renewable energy is roughly 7.5%. While you can argue about giving more funding to renewable energy, they article gives zero information about what the money is used for. The funding could have been used for implementing cleaner technology on existing power plants (oddly enough they won't disappear overnight no matter how much you want them to). Just this year the EPA passed Boiler MACT II which will require large capital costs to install additional environmental equipment.

If you want to make the largest impact possible to reduct emissions you can't neglect your current power grid.

Well.... Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the large amount of subsidies are somehow correlated to the fact that the vast majority of us actually use fossil fuels in our transportation systems now.

Yup; Needs to change

[WindBourne]

That is the sad part. We say that we want one thing, while our subsidies are helping large corps with large lobbyists, while paying very little to what would help America. Compound that with 1/2 of the money of the AE world going to Ethanol. That was a payout to farmers by neo-cons in HOPES that they would get votes. Obama needs to show some backbone and change this.

My suggestion has been, and will remain, that Obama/Congress need to change these subsidies to not favor any one company or arena, but to take care of America's security needs. Otherwise, if not for security reasons, then I want ALL subsidies to be removed. From a security POV, then we should be addressing issues;

1. Imports which ties us to large amount of cash outlays, in particular, to nations that are funding terrorism (iran and venezuela are but two).
2. Emissions which we all know DO have an impact. For example, Mercury is poisoning the planet as well as America. The slag that is removed is piling up and not taken care of. And all that ignores the CO2 issue.
3. Diversity of our energy matrix, so that not any one item can impact us.

As such, it should be that subsidies should be High initially and then dropped over time. It should address the above, without congress/pres. picking winners. The subsidies will drop for any arena that reaches 25% of total energy. i.e. once nuclear gets to say 25% of our total energy output, then all of these subsidies for it must stop.

1. A subsidy for energy that is convertible to electricity and is emissions free and no import of fuel.
2. A further subsidy of subsidy one that is base-load capable i.e. 24x7 available.
3. A subsidy for energy storage, convertible to electricity. This is distinct from the second subsidy, in that this is storage only and is not be used in conjunction with it.

IFF we do the above, will we see changes in America. In particular, we will see Geo-thermal and Solar Thermal additions to Coal/Gas plants be added quickly. The 2'nd item would drop emissions and fossil fuel use up to 30% for West America, and overall up to 15% for America. All within 5-10 years. Geo-thermal would also become prevalent quickly. Keep in mind that the faster that it is put in, the higher the subsidy.
Finally, the energy storage makes it possible not just AE be better, but it also allows for large power companies to count on larger nuke systems. In addition, it would create a new breed of companies and investments; companies that store energy at night and sell it back during high loads. In addition, it would help move cars to ultra-caps and push ultra-cap R&D. Why is that? Because batteries are limited in number of charges (100's to UNDER 10K total charges). Ultra-caps are 100Ks to 10's of millions of charges. As such, you convert a car into a money maker for home owners.

Re:Yup; Needs to change

[Anonymous Coward]

That was a payout to farmers by neo-cons in HOPES that they would get votes. Obama needs to show some backbone and change this.

So since the Reps support it because they're greedy but Obama won't change it because he's soft?

Is it me or is anyone else sick of the leftist rhetoric? To me, when Obama doesn't do what someone expects of him they claim he's being strong armed by the right. This is bullshit. Obama doesn't support your programs because he supports what you want him to be against. Why is it that Obama gets a free pass when he doesn't stand up and do what you want? Why isn't he a greedy son-of-a-bitch and a shill in your eyes like every Republican is? He doesn't do anything different but his little PR army keeps cawing on about what a swell guy he is.

He's part of the fucking problem. He's of the same mindset and mold as what you supposedly oppose. Or are you too blind to see that?

Re:Yup; Needs to change

[WindBourne]

Please show me where I am being supportive of Obama in this post.

Being against neo-cons, does not mean that I am in favor of Obama or lefties. I oppose the neo-cons for their total disaster that they created. However, if you even read this post or others, you will see that I am also calling Obama/dems to task for their in ability to change things. Or their UNWILLINGNESS to do the right thing. ANd I separate the neo-cons (reagan and W minions) against the republicans (lincoln, goldwater, truman, etc).

But hey, cowards like you, do not see that. YOU are the problem.

Re:Yup; Needs to change

[Anonymous Coward]

You shown support by going off and saying that the right supports payout to farmers and that Obama needs to show backbone. As if he is against the same kind of dickering but is just soft on support. What if he's for it?
 
Amazing how you got modded up for what you yourself wrote in black and white. I guess that makes me a racist or something too, eh?
 
Fuck you.

Re:Yup; Needs to change

[Anonymous Coward]

That shows support? You are a a tiger nut. No wonder your nation is in the loo with fascist smegheads like you and your republican party.

Relative

[kamukwam]

This might be true, but if you compare it to which fraction of our total energy production is renewable, then renewables get relatively more fuel subsidies than the fossil fuels.

Re:Relative

[WindBourne]

Of course, when you compare to what Coal and Nukes got in their beginning, this is absolutely NOTHING. Both Coal and Nuke power got HUGE subsidies in their early days. Which is exactly why they remain at the top on these. Which is also, why I have suggested changes to our subsidies structures for years.

Re:Relative

[T Murphy]

It depends. We've needed lots of new power plants in the past few decades, so subsides for high-output plants was important. Renewable power is only just starting to be a viable major power source- most government funding towards renewable should still be focused on research. Indiana has hundreds if not thousands of turbines erected or being erected, for example, so renewable power isn't being neglected (I don't know about elsewhere, I just see these turbines a lot). The problem is wind and solar are only good enough right now to take some of the burden off traditional plants. Without storage capacity to even out effective wind and solar generation, I don't see us shutting down many coal plants.

Any restructuring to subsidies should take into account whether renewable is a viable alternative- if you use subsidies to force people to build wind turbines when they needed a reliable coal plant (intended forcing or not), and they end up with problems because of it, people will quickly dislike wind power and turn against renewable power. I want to see the US replace its capacity with renewable plus the occasional nuclear plant (with breeder reactors of course), but only when we are ready for it.

Re:Relative

[Anonymous Coward]

[citation needed]

Isn't anything bio+energy bad?

[rkaa]

I mean.. coal is bio-energy. Oil is bio-energy. The remnants of bio-mass that never made it to the sky, but whose carbon dioxide instead was stored in the ground by nature herself, process commonly known as "natural sinks". How can it be healthier for the planet to burn off bio-mass before it even gets a chance to sink or be "filtered" through various other life forms? I would have thought the production of bio-mass in sum cause as bad outlets of CO2 as oil. Not to mention the harm it does to various species, humans included, when huge areas of diverse vegatation is sacrifized to grow a single type of "fuel base" plants.

Re:Isn't anything bio+energy bad?

[piotru]

Maybe off point, but with my wife we used to joke: if the color is green, it must be healthy.
Last year we went to a vineyard in France, where the owner explained he had not applied for the "Bio" label because he used modern selective fungicides, thus his soil is alive. The "Bio" use copper sulfide at such quantities as to completely eradicate the microbial life from their soils. I prefer not to think what they drink from their wells. As agricultural engineer I think this case of "Bio" is entirely harmful.

WORST HEADLINE EVER

[fartrader]

" Fossil Fuel Subsidies Dwarf Support For Renewables" - never write me a requirements document.

CO2 is clean and subsidies keep food cheap

[piotru]

Unless you accept the situation in which the american farmers have to compete with the third world ones, at high extremity costs (true pollution by pesticides and eutrophication), the fuel subsidies do mean affordable food.
What is called "clean" energy is in reality more polluting by engaging complex technological processes, and at the end perhaps even more CO2 emissions.
And, at the end: It is the CO2 concentration that follows global warming, not the reverse. And yes, non-fossil energy will be needed, but it is not yet ready except the nuclear.

Re:CO2 is clean and subsidies keep food cheap

[Anonymous Coward]

But even nuclear isn't ready to be perfectly honest.
The stupid amounts of money required to make even a crappy small reactor are way too high when considering all the regulatory crap you need to go through... even trusted companies!

Even solar is now beating it in price now.

Figures don't lie -- but liars figure

[redelm]

If you're a greenie, you'll like this rah-rah study. Maybe you need some re-energization.

However, if you're not, maybe you'd like to know exactly _how_ true numbers have been distorted:

Dollar-wise, the biggest distortion is to consider road maintenence and building as a subsidy. This is slippery, since the substantial fuel taxes were justified and accepted by the voters on the basis they would pay for roads. Most places, the road funds are in surplus and contribute to general revenue, not draw from it.

Another large item in the US, but totally unaccounted is the oxygenated gasoline regulations. In many areas, the (obsolete and ineffective) legal requirement is for gasoline to contain 2% oxygen, earlier met with MTBE (which doesn't biodecompose fast enough) and now met with ethanol. In addition to the $1.50/gal direct subsidy, this legal requirement puts a demand floor under deathanol. How much is it worth? Who knows, but probably a large fraction of the direct subsidy.

Accounting for electricity is tough -- renewables use the same grid, and so anything is common. But renewables have poor reliability characteristics, so regs like equal buy/sell price actually are an uncounted subsidy. They certainly require more standby generation.

Give me an example

[kmansfield]

While stating that fossil fuels get a bigger share of the subsidies the article fails to mention a single example. Why don't they give examples? My guess is that almost all of what they are calling subsidies are investment tax credit type subsidies that any business gets. Given that oil and gas are much larger industries, and have much higher capital expenditures, they get more money. What these people really want is to penalize fossil fuels and give subsidies to other forms of energy. Ethanol gets a 50 cent a gallon subsidy, which is huge, the government mandates that it be put into gasoline, and yet ethanol plants go broke. There is no cheap and reliable alternative to fossil fuels. If people want clean energy they better be prepared to pay dearly for it.

Re:Give me an example

[Stumbles]

Even if TFA does not specify a single example. I think that is immaterial. The real issue is why my tax dollars are being used to subsidize the oil industry in the first place. It is not like that industry is fledgling, not been around for a while or actually really needs it; especially given their historical profit levels over the years. Even in your last statement you still miss the point. The billions used to subsidize the oil industry should not even be there... it should be in renewable energy.

Re:Give me an example

[Firethorn]

Reread his post: 'tax credit subsidies that ANY business gets'.

For example there are tax subsidies you can get for building a 'green' office building. It might sound odd, but having piles of cash around, as well as offices all over the place the oil industry is in a prime position to build or remodel their offices to be green.

If subsidies like that are part of the study they shouldn't really be, as they apply to any business - Ford, IBM, Cisco, Pepsi, Sears, Walmart, JCPenny, the local toolshop, whatever. In addition to the oil companies. They also get subsidies for improving their environmental protections.

Such subsidies are dwarfed by the taxes they pay.

Meanwhile Germany leads in Solar - but that's because Germany has mandated that the electricity companies buy any solar power on the order of 70-80 cents per kwh. That's like 8x what I pay per kwh.

Re:Give me an example

[dave87656]

Germany has mandated that the electricity companies buy any solar power on the order of 70-80 cents per kwh

Not quite. Solar is reimbursed at 42 euro cents (~54 us cent). The law was just updated. The new rates are lower.

Re:Give me an example

[Firethorn]

So it's 5X, not 8X.

In reading I know that it used to be 1EU

Re:Give me an example

[dave87656]

The rate keeps going down. Given than typical residential KW costs are about 22 cents, the utilities are paying alot of money. And still, given the capital costs for solar panels it doesn't make much money for those doing it. I spoke with one guy who did it. Basically he covers his costs for 15 years (including the cost of borrowing the money) and makes a little in the last 10 years of the solar panels expected life.

He's basically of the opinion that it isn't worth the effort.

Re:Give me an example

[Firethorn]

Given than typical residential KW costs are about 22 cents, the utilities are paying alot of money.

I know energy tends to cost more in Europe, but ever consider that part of the reason you're paying 22 cents a kwh is these subsidies? That your electric bill is partially going towards his solar install?

I understand why Germany is doing it. It's just that I'm aware that it's not without it's costs. An awful lot of other economic activity was forgone to install those panels, and a lot of panel installs that might have gone in where they'd generate more weren't done because Germany was buying them up.

Germany isn't all that further south than Britain, and I remember reading a study that basically said that after solar power reached x% it'd actually be cheaper to lease land in Africa and run a set of superconducting through the ocean north, due to the greater power generation down there.

Re:Give me an example

[dave87656]

I know energy tends to cost more in Europe, but ever consider that part of the reason you're paying 22 cents a kwh is these subsidies? That your electric bill is partially going towards his solar install?

Absolutely right. As long as solar is more expensive to produce, we (the consumers) are going to have to pay for it. I suppose it's worth it, in the sense that you have to start somewhere to start getting the economies of scale to bring down the cost. That seems to be happening, but only slowly.

Germany isn't all that further south than Britain, and I remember reading a study that basically said that after solar power reached x% it'd actually be cheaper to lease land in Africa and run a set of superconducting through the ocean north, due to the greater power generation down there.

I've always wondered if the intense sun in parts of Africa could become some sort of export at some point. Either through solar generated electricity or using that electricity to convert water to hydrogen and export it.

I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder which industry pays more in taxes.

Fun with statistics

[tompaulco]

So according to Wikipedia, approximately 7.3% of electric power in the United States comes from renewable energy. According to this article, approximately 7.4% of the total subsidies were allocated to renewable energy.
Oh, and let's not forget that they are including bogus "subsidies" such as military costs in the equation.

Re:Fun with statistics

[WindBourne]

Please show where military costs are considered part of the equation.
Because US military alone was budgeted 663 billion in 2010 (though spent something like .9T).

Re:Fun with statistics

[Crypto Gnome]

Even assuming what you're saying is 100% true, the implication of that is that the current scheme of subsidies MAINTAINS THE STATUS QUO and DOES NOTHING to encourage development of renewable energy sources.

If you want to *encourage* something, you need to MASSIVELY weight the equations EITHER FOR OR AGAINST. A policy of "weighting" (via subsidies) things equally is literally a waste of money, while *appearing* to do something for renewable (look see how much money we spend subsidizing it)?.

For those of you objecting to this report

[WindBourne]

Here is a pretty little graphics for American subsidies.
Now, here is where you can get the study.

What this shows is just 6 years. It does not show the money that was originally put into many of these programs. For example, Nuke had LOADS of R&D done by the feds. Still does. And it still needs more (hopefully this time, the feds will not stop the IFR project that has been quietly started at UIUC; GD kerry for pushing it and CLinton for not having enough backbone to say no). And Coal had LOADS of fed and state assistance to get started. Free land; loads of pollution with zero clean up (see pix of eastern aChina to get an idea of what some parts of America was like in the 60's).

Even now, the subsidy that is being calculated in the above study has NOTHING about the air, water, and ground pollution that is allowed. If burning coal and oil had to pay for their pollution in all these areas, then they would quickly run to the top in terms of costs. WELL OVER Solar PV (which today is the current king of costs).

Re:For those of you objecting to this report

[Anonymous Coward]

Carbon Capture (which is that graph) is the stupidest idea ever. Its just a way for the fossil fuel industry to keep going.

Re:For those of you objecting to this report

[WindBourne]

The good news is that it accomplishes what needs to happen. Making industry accountable for their pollution. By requiring Coal and Gas plants to bury it, they will have a strong incentive to do things like Solar Thermal to the plant. Likewise, they will want to do energy storage. Basically, once Fossil fuel is required to handle their emissions (and that is IN ALL NATIONS; not just in the west which is what is happening), then and only then will the air, water clean up and items like Nukes and AE become trying affordable.

Re:For those of you objecting to this report

[khallow]

Its just a way for the fossil fuel industry to keep going.

What's wrong with that? As I've said here before, there seems to be among some environmentalists a peculiar emphasis on behavior modification even at the expense of solving the problem. This appears to me to be an example of that thinking. If the fossil fuel industry (which really is more than just the harvesting and burning of fossil fuels) really can go carbon neutral, especially if they figure out how to recycle that carbon into biofuels, then why shouldn't they keep going? At some point we need to have a working society with working energy generation. Obstructing activities because someone doesn't like them seems to me ultimately disastrous. We should instead approach this rationally and liberally, restricting freedom of choice only when there is obvious and pressing harm (eg, something that you can sue in court for).

Re:For those of you objecting to this report

[Solandri]

Here is a pretty little graphics for American subsidies.

Hate to rain on the parade, but if you compare that graphic to a breakdown of energy sources, it's pretty obvious renewables are getting a much larger subsidy per unit of energy produced. I dunno why people who make charts like yours insist on comparing numbers in such a skewed way. It's like claiming the Johnsons with a food budget of just $250/mo are somehow more frugal than the Smiths who have a food budget of $750/mo. Leaving out the fact that the Johnsons live alone, while the Smiths have 20 people living in their household. My belief is you can convince more people with intellectual honesty than by tricking them with statistics.

Agreed on the stuff about pollution and externalized negatives.

Re:For those of you objecting to this report

[WindBourne]

Yes, AE is getting more subsidy on a per watt item. HOWEVER, when Nukes, Coal, and Natural gas were started as energy production, they got a LOT more than this. Once the installed wattage is up, then the subsidy/watt drops.

Numbers aren't scaled by energy production

[Anonymous Coward]

But if fossil fuels are providing ~86% of global energy use, it should be obvious that government subsidy of any type of energy production is inevitably going to be dominated by subsidies to fossil fuels. Do the math. 0.86/0.07 is ~12.3x as much energy being supplied from fossil fuels as renewables. In terms of money ($557 billion/$46 billion) it's about the same ratio (12.1). All this says is that governments are subsidizing energy production. Period. If anything, it suggests they're investing slightly more in renewables in terms of the resulting contribution to the overall energy mix, but that easily could be in the rounding error. The two are close. Also, I don't know if the report takes account of the substantial amount of revenue that most governments receive in the form of royalties for fossil fuel production from public lands. Are these net subsidies or just costs? I couldn't find the original report on the Bloomberg site.

The article's conclusion that it will take decades to bring renewables up to a significant chunk of fossil fuel energy production is correct, which is why there should be heavy investment now, so that as oil supplies start to dwindle in the next few decades we will have something to fall back on, other than burning the floorboards to heat our houses.

People have a poor understanding of just how challenging it will be to replace a significant portion of fossil fuels. We have alternatives, but the amount of fossil fuels we are using is HUGE. I did a simple calculation that tried to replace crude oil with vegetable oil (i.e. biofuels) by diverting *all* global production of vegetable oils to fuel supply (peanut oil, canola oil, everything). It came out to something like a measly 10% of global oil consumption for fuel. And obviously you can't divert all food production like that or increase production by several times without problems.

truman was a democrat

[Anonymous Coward]

idiot

Re:truman was a democrat

[WindBourne]

oops. Meant to say Eisenhower.

wrong

[bussdriver]

The debt is LARGER.
Deficit is all people talk about and often confuse with the debt. The total debt is higher but when we had a "surplus" instead of using that to pay down the debt, the public thought we were in the green again !?#@!
You can't ignore your mortgage because you stopped going in the hole every month!

As far as this national debt blabbing its hype - because it was a non-starter before 2009. During WWII the deficit was much higher; although, we had a real GDP back then. Also, the total debt was lower back then... but then now we monopolize the new gold standard: the US dollar -- that is until it gets so weak that it loses status or more nations allow OIL to be purchased in euros. We may have gone off gold, but we realistically traded it for OIL we didn't have but was sold in dollars...

Re:wrong

[glodime]

...the $13Trillion in US national debt

The debt is LARGER.

The USA's national deficit in 2009 was $1.4 Trillion. The USA's total (or gross) national debt was, as of July 29, 2010, $13.2 Trillion. The post you replied to was correct.

... we had a real GDP back then.

Real GDP is a relative measure of the economic output of some predefined region in a particular year adjusted for inflation from some base year.

...we monopolize the new gold standard

There is no longer a gold standard (or fixed exchange rate of dollars and goal). When it existed in the USA, it had nothing to do with a monopoly over some good.

...we realistically traded it [gold?] for OIL we didn't have but was sold in dollars...

I don't think that I can help you on this part. I don't even know what you are trying to convey.

You started off strong, though slightly off-topic, with your true comment about people often confusing deficit with debt. But your comment degraded quickly as you continued. Thanks for letting us know that you are confused... I hope I've helped.

Re:wrong

[CrimsonAvenger]

but when we had a "surplus" instead of using that to pay down the debt, the public thought we were in the green again !?#@!

We haven't had a surplus in the Federal government since 1956. That particular surplus went from 1955-56, and totalled $4 billion before we went back to spending more than we take in taxes.

No, Clinton and the Republican Congress didn't have a surplus, even once, in spite of what either side would have you believe. The closest they got was $18 billion in the red in Clinton's last year in office - impressive in itself to get the deficit that small even once, but not a surplus.

Re:wrong

[Geoffrey.landis]

As far as this national debt blabbing its hype - because it was a non-starter before 2009.

Yes, this was an amazing thing. The Republican rhetoric was very much talking about fiscal responsibility and balancing the budget... right up until a Republican president had a Republican majority in congress. At that point, with amazing suddenness, the Republicans stopped talking about fiscal responsability, and the Republican president didn't see any expenditures that didn't look just fine to him. Talking about the debt was-- as you say-- a "non-starter." In fact, I even heard the Republicans say that balancing the budget "wasn't important." (The technical term for this was "big government conservatism." Google it-- it's apparently not an oxymoron.)

Then, when the Republicans stop controlling Congress, all of a sudden, wham, they start talking about the desperate need for fiscal responsibilty.

Conclusion? The party in power likes to spend money. Don't pay attention to how they talk; pay attention to what they do.

No, Clinton and the Republican Congress didn't have a surplus, even once, in spite of what either side would have you believe. The closest they got was $18 billion in the red in Clinton's last year in office - impressive in itself to get the deficit that small even once, but not a surplus.

To be fair, when you get to numbers that are low, it depends on the details of how you account. The current way the budget of the US is accounted includes social security. If you include social security as income (and payments as expenses), and if you count "the government buying debt from itself" as well as "the government paying interest to itself" as a wash, the Clinton administration did run a slight "surplus."

In any case, it was damn impressive that he got the budget under control to the point where it was even close.

Re:wrong

[CrimsonAvenger]

If you include social security as income (and payments as expenses), and if you count "the government buying debt from itself" as well as "the government paying interest to itself" as a wash, the Clinton administration did run a slight "surplus."

So, do you think that you have more money to spend when you lend yourself money and then pay that money back to yourself with interest? I didn't think so.

In any case, it was damn impressive that he got the budget under control to the point where it was even close.

Give credit to the Republican Congress as well. It's not like the previous (or subsequent) Democratic Congress has made any attempts to rein in expenditures. Not that I consider a less than $20 billion surplus in one year as making up for the ~$1.4 trillion net deficit for that eight year period.

Personally, I never give any President credit/blame for budget surpluses/deficits. The House and Senate, whether Republican or Democrat, deserve all the blame/credit for that. And if more Americans would remember that come polling time, we'd probably all be better off.

Note, in addition, that if the Congress runs up a couple trillion in debt in any two year period, but you vote YOUR congressmen back in because they voted against it, then you're doing the wrong thing too - strategic voting has always been part of politics ("I can't vote for your gun control measure unless it's absolutely required to make the measure pass, since my constituents would kick me out if I did. So I'll provide vote number 51 of 51, but if there are already 51, I'll vote no...."), and should never be discounted....

Re:wrong

[slick7]

The debt is LARGER. Deficit is all people talk about and often confuse with the debt. The total debt is higher but when we had a "surplus" instead of using that to pay down the debt, the public thought we were in the green again !?#@! You can't ignore your mortgage because you stopped going in the hole every month!

As far as this national debt blabbing its hype - because it was a non-starter before 2009. During WWII the deficit was much higher; although, we had a real GDP back then. Also, the total debt was lower back then... but then now we monopolize the new gold standard: the US dollar -- that is until it gets so weak that it loses status or more nations allow OIL to be purchased in euros. We may have gone off gold, but we realistically traded it for OIL we didn't have but was sold in dollars...

When the government borrows money from a private corporation (the FED), whose motto is "more profit" the government loses with greater losses in the long term.
The national debt would be more controllable if the government printed its own currency, backed by precious metals, and borrowed against itself at 0% interest.

Re:wrong

[cheesybagel]

Clinton reduced expenses alright. He closed down many military bases. Several programs were either shut down or reduced in scope (remember the Strategic Defense Initiative, NASP, one thousand ship Navy).

During his time some things were closed though they shouldn't have like the IFR, or AVLIS. His predecessors showed a similar myopic view by shutting down Synthetic fuel research. It would have been nice to have any of these technologies available right now!

Re:wrong

[Geoffrey.landis]

Clinton reduced expenses alright. He closed down many military bases.

Well, to be fair, of the military bases closed by the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) commissions, the 1988 and 1991 closures were done while Reagan or Bush were in office, and it's not really fair to credit Clinton with the 1993 BRAC, since it was already well in process when he took office in January 1993. So, really the only base closings you can credit Clinton with were the 1995 BRAC.

One of the few times that a process that is inherently partisan (every congressman wants to keep the base in their district alive, regardless of whether it's useful) managed to be implemented, mostly, by a non-partisan commission.

Re:wrong

[bussdriver]

amen brother!
But that is a whole other side issue. The religious belief in the free market private corporation is the source for most our problems since the civil war when the modern corporation was born. Generations of propaganda tells us the corps should run everything and spending money is a form voting. This results in conclusions like how the FED can better run our monetary system for us... How the stock market can handle our social security... etc.

Re:wrong

[bussdriver]

thanx. I thought we past 15 trillion already. I've heard various numbers.

Our GDP is made up of too much non-real things. We used to have larger percentages of output that were actual tangible items. Small business used to have a larger stake in it too. I'm actually NOT a fan of GDP as a measurement outside of illustrating how bad our trade deficit is (dead last by a crazy margin.)

The Gold standard was simple and understandable and fairly fixed. We moved to a dynamic complex and not understandable system where a minority can wield the complexity against us. We traded gold for Oil Dollars; the world needs oil and you buy it in US dollars which increased the value of our currency. This was similar to owning much of the gold but unlike gold, it fluctuates and oil demand will not last forever and as we've seen - Euros are also buying OIL today. The "new gold standard" refers to this Oil Dollar influence on this post gold system. This is where the modern complex monetary system mixes with OIL and energy policies where the two topics used to not be coupled. We must not only secure OIL as a fuel but also because it backs our monetary policy. In addition, we have to prop up the currency's value in other ways; giving us more attack vectors to guard than just protecting a mountain of gold.

I do tend to rant off into tangents that require a great deal more verbosity than I afford them.

Nobody's gone the other way

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody's gone the other way. Paris Hilton, anyone? But just because dad got billions, she can make more money than she can spend.

Inheritance tax: 100%. If you want your children to have something better than you did, SPEND IT WHILE YOU'RE THERE.

If really necessary, allow the family home to be bought by the family with a tax break, but that's all, if they've already done well, they've already got a home.

lol wut?

[ozbird]

Why do dwarves need renewable energy subsidies?

Re:lol wut?

[Antisyzygy]

Because they have relied too long on their current steam technology and have gutted their underground kingdom of its coal resources.

Are you including the cost of Iraq?

[OpenGLFan]

If you include the cost of our presence in Iraq, the oil subsidy dwarfs imagination.

(And if you don't think our presence in Iraq is about oil, then I have a bridge to sell you that was highly subsidized by the city of London.)

Re:Are you including the cost of Iraq?

[Phil-14]

And an independent well operator in Oklahoma is benefitting from the US occupying Iraq, how?

All the US military presence abroad does is save y'all from the consequences of the nickel-and-diming-to-death that's been done to domestic oil and gas over the past twenty years.

Re:Are you including the cost of Iraq?

[LynnwoodRooster]

If you include the cost of our presence in Iraq, the oil subsidy dwarfs imagination.

You are aware that the US gets most of its oil domestically, from Canada, and Mexico? Most of the Middle East oil ends up in Europe and Asia, not the US. The US gets about 15% of all its petroleum from the Middle East, and about 4% from Iraq.

And in Iraq, the biggest share (about 80%, IIRC) of drilling rights issued to foreign companies went to non-US companies... If we're there for oil, it's for oil for other countries, not the US.

Re:Where is the study? Iraq, Afghanistan...

[flyingfsck]

Add in the cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars and fossil fuel subsidies will dwarf anything.

Fossil fuel subsidies? Really?

[dcavanaugh]

Last I heard, fossil fuels were heavily taxed. Governments are addicted to the revenue stream they produce. So powerful is this addiction, the concept of global warming was established to accelerate the money grab to astronomical proportions.

I am not saying there is no such thing as fossil fuel subsidy, but the article never mentioned any specifics. Any such calculations need to deduct fuel taxes, since taxation is the opposite of a subsidy.

Sort of

[zogger]

You can still get partial tax credit for alternate energy production systems, some places have similar for going to an electric car, and it is totally legal to make your own ethanol fuel (you do have to register though and use an additive to make your 'shine undrinkable), or you can make biodiesel, using waste products you scrounge up, or grow your own veggie oil source. So you have the freedom to subsidize yourself, given you just do it.

total amount of subsidies irrelevant

[beefubermensch]

Subsidy dollars per GWh are the relevant units. According to the EIA, and browsing through dsireusa.org, we find that "renewables" currently get the greatest subsidies by far.

Re:total amount of subsidies irrelevant

[LynnwoodRooster]

Subsidy dollars per GWh are the relevant units. According to the EIA, and browsing through dsireusa.org, we find that "renewables" currently get the greatest subsidies by far.

Mod parent up. This is like saying your next door neighbor give $20 per week total allowances to their children, compared to $5 per week you give your kids. Never mind they have 16 children sharing that $20...

Wind and solar get about 100 TIMES the per-GWh subsidy of oil and coal.

Others have also mentioned the taxes; ExxonMobil (that evil Big Oil company) pays about $3 in taxes/Government fees for every $1 in net profit the company makes. Governments make the lion's share of the money from Exxon pumping, refining, and distributing oil, not the owners of ExxonMobil. In 2008 ExxonMobil paid close to $120 billion in taxes/fees - nearly 10 TIMES the subsidies to "green" energy. Just from ONE of the big energy producers in the US. If the US Government is "not giving enough" subsidies to "green" energy, it's not at the request or benefit of Big Oil and other producers of energy...

Re:total amount of subsidies irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

What point are you trying to make here? The lion's share of those figures that are reported as taxes were paid to foreign countries - if Exxon's finds that to be too onerous, they can always
leave. The amounts paid in the US are much lower and include taxes collected on sales, not income. How much did Exxon receive in subsides and tax breaks, domestic and worldwide?

Missing the boat

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't have to use the military to get oil from Iran or Iraq - we could buy it from friendly countries like Canada, UK, Russia.

What's in that for the business of government?

Bio-energy probs in a nutcase

[Yergle143]

It's all solar in the end right...just converted to chemical energy. I've read up on the intricacies of bio-fuel and on the whole I'm against it. The trouble is the long term environmental impact of land based fuel crops is horrendous...and all we get is a net neutral in terms of CO2...suck it out of the sky...put it back in.

Algae offers much in terms of land use but little in terms of the CO2 neutrality problem. Much more research needed; don't believe the hype.

I'm for the establishment of a fully electric civilization; solar, wind, wave, nuke.

   

Dwarf support for renewables?

[Chris Mattern]

What about elf support?

In other unsurprising news

[Naznarreb]

Fire hot, water wet.

Clinton did ok

[Anonymous Coward]

I have an uncle in the state dept who didn't like clinton but the only positive thing he says is that he used to have 6 people between him and whatever his job required - he hated the red tape and bloat. Clinton cut that down by 1/2 to 1/3 and for that he liked Clinton; everything else would be a long bitching rant against Clinton but that 1 thing was quite amazing considering.