[O]n Wednesday morning, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, reiterated the belief that energy is a "nonpartisan issue," as it means creating jobs and building wealth. "It doesn't matter because this is wealth creation," said Chu. "Rather than get in a debate about climate predictions, say this is a debate about our future prosperity."
10 comments:
Reminds me of a priceless quote from a clueless reporter. After the death of Tip O'Neill, a panel of pundits (from both sides) were chuckling over a comment one had made with reference to how consistently the liberal Tip had always pushed for bigger and bigger government. One woman reporter was offended. "I don't see what's so funny. He was only trying to help people!"
And just as anyone who disagreed with O'Neill was obviously motivated by a desire to harm people, Chu confirms for us that his preferences represent the only possible way that any right thinking person could think.
There seems to a coordinated effort amongst the self-appointed elites to have the ridiculous policies of AGW without bothering to discuss the validity of the policies or their inspiration.
This will also fail.
I can think of nothing more partisan than the destruction of the American fossil fuel industry and the direct subsidy of windmills and solar panels.
FofFandS,
How about we just remove subsidies then for the fossil fuel industry? In this time of balancing budgets, I would think this would be welcome.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2ygdsSj.KQI
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=how-much-in-subsidies-do-fossil-fue-2009-09-18
I definitely agree with the comment as presented. Sadly, the administration of which he's a part vehemently disagrees, else they'd allow the wealth creation and prosperity to happen.
mazibuko,
Please list out the subsidies the fossil fuel industry receives?
FoFandS,
Here's a couple of sources:
http://www.eli.org/pressdetail.cfm?ID=205
A relevant paragraph:
"The vast majority of subsidy dollars to fossil fuels can be attributed to just a handful of
tax breaks, such as the Foreign Tax Credit ($15.3 billion) and the Credit for Production
of Nonconventional Fuels ($14.1 billion). The largest of these, the Foreign Tax Credit,
applies to the overseas production of oil through an obscure provision of the Tax Code,
which allows energy companies to claim a tax credit for payments that would normally
receive less-beneficial tax treatment."
And here's a review of a number of studies looking at US fossil fuel subsidies:
http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies.htm
Cheers, M
And don't count as a subsidy any tax policy that applies to industry in general like deduction of taxes paid to other governments on income generated in their country.
The man is disconnected from reality. Jobs that consume more wealth than they produce are not good for the economy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8284223/Himalayan-glaciers-not-melting-because-of-climate-change-report-finds.html
mazibuko,
All the Foreign tax credit does is to allow American companies paying taxes overseas to not pay taxes on those same profits more than once.
That is not a subsidy.The unconventional energy tax credit is not a direct subsidy, but allows energy producers who produce specifically targeted energy to pay less tax on it.
the interesting thing is that you are citing a group that falsely claims oil gets the same subsidies as wind and solar, which receive literal operating support by tax payers.
Most people can see the difference.
Can you?
Hi Again,
It might not be quite so simple as that on the foreign tax credit. See the following article's section of the Saudi royalties reclassified as taxes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all
Also look at the effective tax rates on capital investments by the oil industry, which are far lower than the industry average.
There's a couple of other examples as well in there--see the one about dry well deductions.
So Big Oil isn't necessarily getting a direct check cut for most of their subsidies (I believe there are some of those, too, related to research, but haven't the time to find that). They still have the tax code rigged in their favor, which counts as a subsidy in most quarters. They receive substantial "tax expenditures", which is a concept that has recently started to gain some attention, even from John Boehner.
And we aren't even talking about the non-GHG related externalities of oil and coal.
Anyway, I would like to ask: are you suggesting that fossil fuel production and usage is not subsidized?
Thanks, M
Post a Comment