The reasonable way to phase out fossil fuels is to shrink their subsidies. We're moving away from fossil fuels, it is obvious. Originally Posted by Muy LargoWhat subsidies? They are insignificant. They always were insignificant. You eliminate them and that will have "0" effect on the industry.
When farming became a sterile industrialized business with monoculture running wild they went Republican. So have most extractive industries that require lots of pollution and natural resource degradation. It's similar to how the Deep South changed its political affiliation from Democrat to Republican when the Democrats championed civil rights. That's today's lesson in hypocrisy and subsidies. One last thing, you need to examine the essential ingredients to what makes up a habitable environment: healthy air, healthy water, healthy soil and healthy food. Take a look around you, and ask yourself if we're on the right track. If you answer truthfully, the next question is what can we do differently? Or, what must we do differently? Originally Posted by Muy LargoAre you willing to live without electricity, gasoline or diesel? Because without exploiting natural resources you're not going to have any of those. If you think the environmental degradation you saw during your Sunday afternoon drives through eastern North Dakota was just horrible, I'd hate to see how you react to the cobalt, lithium, nickel, iron ore and coking coal mines and processing facilities in the Congo, Peru, Indonesia, and Australia, which provide the materials for renewable energy.
OK, but not to the point where our fossil fuel production decreases to a point that we go back to dependence on OPEC which could very well happen under the Biden administration. Originally Posted by HedonistForeverUh, why on earth would anyone confuse the USA, a net exporter of oil, dependent on OPEC oil, thats so 1970's
Tiny,Muy Largo, I disagree with your belief that tax breaks are subsidies, and I believe the oil and gas industry pays more than its share of tax because it and it alone is burdened by severance taxes. However, you're downright reasonable compared to the IMF. In their paper, which you're referring to, they define subsidies as "fuel consumption times the gap between existing and efficient prices (i.e., prices warranted by supply costs, environmental costs, and revenue considerations)". In other words, they arbitrarily determine environmental "costs" of fossil fuel production, and call it a subsidy. The $649 billion is not a subsidy. It's a made up number.
Of course, tax breaks are subsidies. Economists routinely categorize them that way. But it's not just tax breaks. There are other types of "subsidies". Recall the wonderful Keystone pipeline that crosses the northern plains. The pipeline's promoters promised regulators there would be zero problems. A couple years later, after a dozen leaks, taxpayers had to underwrite serious mitigation projects. This happens all over the planet.
According to ESSIE (not a treehugging research group):
...But rather than being phased out, fossil fuel subsidies are actually increasing. The latest International Monetary Fund (IMF) report estimates 6.5 percent of global GDP ($5.2 trillion) was spent on fossil fuel subsidies (including negative externalities) in 2017, a half trillion dollar increase since 2015. The largest subsidizers are China ($1.4 trillion in 2015), the United States ($649 billion) and Russia ($551 billion). According to the IMF, "fossil fuels account for 85 percent of all global subsidies," and reducing these subsidies "would have lowered global carbon emissions by 28 percent and fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 46 percent, and increased government revenue by 3.8 percent of GDP." An Overseas Development Institute study found that subsidies for coal-fired power increased almost three-fold, to $47.3 billion per year, from 2014 to 2017. Originally Posted by Muy Largo
Or maybe they'll build a pipeline to the Canadian west coast and ship the oil to China. That's oil that we might need if the Democrats shut down fracking and we become dependent on the Middle East again for crude supplies. Originally Posted by Tinyyou make up information as you go ?
you make up information as you go ?
Fracking wasn't profitable, the pipeline isn't profitable.
In 2010 the break even was $75 a barrel oil. over time they reduced the cost to $57 Originally Posted by bf0082
Biden killed the XL portion of Keystone. Are you familiar with how they get this oil? They basically raze mountains.
I'm kind of confused about your Keystone Pipeline comment. I thought Biden killed that. . Originally Posted by Tiny
Pay attention Sir Hedonist. I chuckle at South Dakota's Republican governor, Kristi Noem, a MAGA darling, while throngs of right wing loyalists applaud her phony calls for freedom and independence from government. Her state relies on federal "subsidies" more than any other state in the union. Originally Posted by Muy LargoShe will get politically smacked across the head if she tries to take her lies nationally.