|
Post by jacquelope on Nov 13, 2012 3:38:32 GMT -6
Is it possible that cheap gasoline depends on subsidies and corporate welfare, just like solar? www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2012/nov/12/iea-report-peak-oil?intcmp=239How has it come to this? The simple answer is because the cost of the damage caused by carbon emissions is still not paid by the polluter. But the IEA's World Energy Outlook 2012 also highlights another huge problem which is throwing fuel on the fire: titanic subsidies for fossil fuels. The IEA estimates that $523 billion US dollars was burned in cutting fossil fuel prices in 2011. Coal, oil and gas are mature industries and should be more than able to stand on their own two feet by now. Renewable energy, in contrast, is relatively new and needs support in driving its costs down – which it is doing, fast – and to compensate for the market failures which mean greenhouse gases continue to be pumped into the atmosphere in ever greater quantities. Yet, in 2011, subsidies for renewables totalled only $88 billion around the world, meaning fossil fuels received six times more. The dirty fuels also got a bigger increase in subsidies in 2011: 30%, compared to the 24% for renewables.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 22, 2012 17:33:56 GMT -6
Is it possible that cheap gasoline depends on subsidies and corporate welfare, just like solar? www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2012/nov/12/iea-report-peak-oil?intcmp=239How has it come to this? The simple answer is because the cost of the damage caused by carbon emissions is still not paid by the polluter. But the IEA's World Energy Outlook 2012 also highlights another huge problem which is throwing fuel on the fire: titanic subsidies for fossil fuels. The IEA estimates that $523 billion US dollars was burned in cutting fossil fuel prices in 2011. Coal, oil and gas are mature industries and should be more than able to stand on their own two feet by now. Renewable energy, in contrast, is relatively new and needs support in driving its costs down – which it is doing, fast – and to compensate for the market failures which mean greenhouse gases continue to be pumped into the atmosphere in ever greater quantities. Yet, in 2011, subsidies for renewables totalled only $88 billion around the world, meaning fossil fuels received six times more. The dirty fuels also got a bigger increase in subsidies in 2011: 30%, compared to the 24% for renewables. This just makes the libertarian case stronger--that we should stop subsidizing fuel production altogether. Just like Housing, energy production appears to be another area where Government intervention has distorted the market--and likely promoted less naturally favorable fuel production over more favorable production.
|
|
|
Post by jacquelope on Nov 25, 2012 9:49:19 GMT -6
Is it possible that cheap gasoline depends on subsidies and corporate welfare, just like solar? www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2012/nov/12/iea-report-peak-oil?intcmp=239How has it come to this? The simple answer is because the cost of the damage caused by carbon emissions is still not paid by the polluter. But the IEA's World Energy Outlook 2012 also highlights another huge problem which is throwing fuel on the fire: titanic subsidies for fossil fuels. The IEA estimates that $523 billion US dollars was burned in cutting fossil fuel prices in 2011. Coal, oil and gas are mature industries and should be more than able to stand on their own two feet by now. Renewable energy, in contrast, is relatively new and needs support in driving its costs down – which it is doing, fast – and to compensate for the market failures which mean greenhouse gases continue to be pumped into the atmosphere in ever greater quantities. Yet, in 2011, subsidies for renewables totalled only $88 billion around the world, meaning fossil fuels received six times more. The dirty fuels also got a bigger increase in subsidies in 2011: 30%, compared to the 24% for renewables. This just makes the libertarian case stronger--that we should stop subsidizing fuel production altogether. Just like Housing, energy production appears to be another area where Government intervention has distorted the market--and likely promoted less naturally favorable fuel production over more favorable production. Libertarians aren't the only ones calling for an end to fuel production subsidies. Liberals are, too. Wasn't Obama talking about that at some point before the 'Keepers' tightened their collar around his neck?
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Nov 25, 2012 13:43:07 GMT -6
This just makes the libertarian case stronger--that we should stop subsidizing fuel production altogether. Just like Housing, energy production appears to be another area where Government intervention has distorted the market--and likely promoted less naturally favorable fuel production over more favorable production. Libertarians aren't the only ones calling for an end to fuel production subsidies. Liberals are, too. Wasn't Obama talking about that at some point before the 'Keepers' tightened their collar around his neck? my jeffolie view often includes a phrase that Politics and Economics are 2 sides of the same coin. "Good Politics" promotes and thrives on good "Economics". Conversely, "Bad Politics" promotes and thrives on bad "economics" As applied to the energy industries, the "good" and "bad" remain moral judgments. My morals of "good" and "bad" involve high priorities for health and happiness of the "most common", average American. My views include that money remains merely a medium of exchange to have good health and happiness. Possessing money does not mean much while possessing good health and happiness means a virtuous, good achievement. Many who possess hoards of assets or money, fortunes have neither good health nor happiness.
|
|