Why American stubbornly continues to support a fossil fuel industry that is swimming in money from inflated fuel prices is a confounding issue.
sort by best latest
absolutely correct...subsidies are not the answer. A reduction in taxes and overbearing (not all)governmmental regulation.
As we already owe for what we have given them and the banks, I suggest the subsidies end and we pay that back towards the debt they created!
That's actually a good idea, Perspycacious.
You make an excellent point. When a viable energy alternative emerges,some assistance may be in order, but not now.
Here's one that got a little assistance. In another post I mentioned Tesla's experiments. The Tesla all electric sedan is going to be introduced next month. http://news.yahoo.com/tesla-deliver-sedan-earlier-...
Read this, before defending the oil companies too strongly - http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/01/exx...
OK Sue, Exxon made 41 billion in profits and the FED stole about 14 trillion from middle America through this scam called the Mortgage mess. Again I ask you who is the real crooks here.
More money from our gallon of gas goes to government than to oil companies. The reason for oil company profits is that MORE gallons were consumed on the global market. It is simple supply and demand and quantity of units sold.
You are right Mitch. This situation is not the Oil companies' faults. This has been pushed as a class envy issue and it is not. They employ millions and spend millions. The government sucks your money out and doesn't contribute.
I read your link. I think the most notable thing is that it showed that Exxon made a $40 billion profit in 2011. Exon spent about $420 billion in that same year for a less than 10 percent ROI. When you spend a lot of money, you often make money.
Gov doesn't contribute, Roy? We're talking about fossil fuel subsidies. That's who the gov contributes to. They also pass legislation that favors, approve drilling permits on federal lands, and just waged two very expensive wars for oil. :-(
Government funding isn't the answer, as the government doesn't have any money that it does't first confiscate from those that produce. If there is a market for reliable "alternate" fuel they will be brought to market by way of the free market.
A perfect place to put it.
Sue: It's just to vague to buy in when someone sez (in order): "I heard about a paint.." and "I talked with a guy who had developed...", "Last month I talked with a guy who'd developed..." and, "..there are experiments galore.."
If I'm seeing potential everywhere I look, including university research, that isn't getting to market, then others must be too. Are you telling me personal experience doesn't count?
Try running cars on potential, heat your home with potential, make plastics from potential. Try being logical not emotional.
Mr. Guesser. You do realize that all physical products start with ideas, do you not? And that ideas are made into experiments which are then perfected, etc. until they are ready for market. I'm not being emotional, but observant.
Experiments run nothing. Write back when it works.
Yes, I complain about the US military using so much oil. That's why we went to Iraq and tried to build a pipeline through Afghanistan too (which the Taliban blocked). Yes, I dislike $ given to Israel. Subsidies are best used for new technologies.
Sue, exactly how much oil did we get from Iraq in exchange for the war?
We're on it! Back into Iraqi oil for the first time, since we were shut out in 1973. Read this - http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/07-3
How much oil Sue? Stop evading questions and back up your story. Or maybe you can't.
Some of our "foreign aid" goes to feed hungry children, provide basic health care and teach people how to earn a living. Some, maybe a majority,of it is wasted.
Foreign aid is a toughie. I was in the Peace Corps a couple of times and worked on such projects. The trick is setting it up so the desired end user gets it, not the developing country's government officials.
We agree on something. Foreign aid can be well spent. It just has to be well administered.
I have no problem with foreign feeding hungry children, but most of it is used for other things. There are a lot of hungry children in US schools with budget cuts, which irks you when you hear there are no foreign aid cuts on the horizon.
Truthfully, it shouldn't be a choice between foreign aid and feeding children at home. The amount we pay for both is piddling compared to what we've forked out for war. Imagine what we could do for our people in the US with the 4 trillion war $.
I would not argue one point with you. I just do not know how we are going to accomplish it because some of the wars we fight do eventually make life better for the people who now have so little.
We did respond when OPEC closed the tap. We drilled more wells, we advanced technology, we lower the speed limit, we conserved and the industry produced more oil. We panic when our gas gauge was at 3/4 of a tank by needlessly topping off our tanks.
The 1st time that happened we did not have 20/20 hindsight. What is our excuse now?
And long term, we should not do what we did in the 70's, because there are now other factors besides oil dependency for the country, like climate change.
The 70s should have been a wake-up call. Our dependency was exposed. We can drill more but then what? It doesn't stay here anyway and when we've tapped that last barrel they'll have us by the you-know-what again.
Exactly my point.
Unless oil drilling, can be strictly used for domestic consumption the average Joe isn't going to feel it in his tank, (I didn't even mention speculation which can still keep oil high in price.)
And climate change....?
Yes, right in the N. Dakota.
And in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas in Alaska - pristine coasts depended upon by myriad species of wildlife for survival, where oceans freeze into icebergs and hurricanes rage - worse conditions than the Caribbean, impossible to clean up a spill.
Where is that pesky Carribbean oil spill? I looked everywhere for it.
There's a lawsuit against BP and facts are being withheld. Still, 600 dolphin deaths in one year to the normal 75. Try this. http://blog.nwf.org/2012/04/two-years-into-bp-oil-...
More evasion Sue? Post some current photos of the oil spill that is "impossible to clean up". Certainly you have them if it's still there. Or are you making that stuff up?
Tell the woman, whose only income is from the oil co. stocks he purchased while working and left it to her when he died that she is a "wealthy shareholder." Tell teachers in LA, where part of their retirement is in oil stocks that they are wealthy.
Actually, the biggest shareholders of the big corporations are the big corporations themselves, owning each other's stocks. I would classify the two examples you gave, Larry, as poor shareholders, who could choose to switch investments if they want.
Consider the following from Business Week Magazine:
Annual Revenue: $442 billion
Expenditures: $400 billion
People: 2.5 million shareholders, 83,600 employees.
The profit margin is about 10 percent and 2.5 million is a lot of shareholders
You're right, Larry. I just looked and Vanguard and Fidelity are two of Exxon's biggest shareholders. Several others are banks or trust funds of banks. Another is an investment company for businesses. The stock market has evolved. ;-)
Sue: Thank you for your research. You not only proved that there are small shareholders--my 401K was once through Fidelity. You also showed there are many misconceptions about the oil and gas industry. I will be doing a hub on this in a few days.
Yes indeed. My father had investments in Vanguard and Fidelity when he died. Personally, I prefer to support smaller investment companies that focus on green and fair trade industries. That gives them SOME funding for bringing goods to market anyway.
Name one source that will replace oil.
solar panels can work wonders
akram, if that were the case then they would be wide available and widely used...
Solar panels are becoming more widely used. These were even placed on the White House during the Carter administration. A lot of people who want to live off the grid and save on electricity buy these, which are not new.
Solar can be used to offset or even remove one from the grid, but it's not a good financial choice at this time. The costs are usually not recouped before the lifetime of the panels expire & need to be replaced. financial viablity is not there Y
Have you tried driving that new solar power car? How about that solar powered Fighter airplane to defend against incoming bombers. And that solar powered Tank is to die for, errr in.
I just found out that Green America is sponsoring a bill through Congress for Clean Energy Victory Bonds. That would be a great way for those of us in support of renewable energy development to contribute - http://cleanenergyvictorybonds.org/about
Thanks Sue for the link, but what else can citizens do to get and push for green energy economy?
The Environmental Action Group I chair is working with our city to do the following: Find alternatives to coal for electricity, build better bike paths, become certified by CA Green Communities. For what's required see - http://www.cagreencom.org/
Those are good steps. Most of LA gets it electric power from Natural gas, some nuclear and some coal, because of Govt. interference in the Carter admin. when it was thought the gas supply was running out. Bike paths do not work with our urban sprawl
Where bike paths do not work mass transit can. I would rather our country begin the transition to green energy rather than 20 years from now with a greater dependence on fossil fuels.
I heard that the city has developed a plan to turn storm drains throughout the city into open streams with bike paths lining them. Do you know anything about that, Larry?
Storm drains to open streams: Bikers caught in sudden currents will have no chance. Open drains collect more trash. Open drains offer more chances of children falling in drains--not the best idea.I don't know your age or commute--bikes are not for me
I would think that civil engineers will be able to figure out how to make storm drains safe - like opening them up to the sky and filling them in with dirt and concrete, and rerouting drainage to drains currently in use for that purpose.
Rerouting drainage is not an easy task. I am sorry but the bike plan would probably cost millions.
Turning any infrastructure from one purpose to another will cost millions. For example, there is a project underway in Atlanta to turn an old rail line into bike paths and walk ways that crosses the entire city, including urban parks.
Mass transit is a great idea. Unfortunately, money is the issue. We barely passed a tax to improve the bus system. A gerrymandered district had to be drawn. We are going to add more routes, but I'm not on the bus route and am eight miles from the CBD
In Los Angeles the city is working with nonprofits to cut costs when refurbishing parks. A nonprofit called NorthEast Trees, for example, designs storm collection systems and plants native trees, while the city works out permits and financing.
I think that our culture will eventually get it right. Mass transit is pretty established in Atlanta, but I have issue with a transit system that goes to bed at 12AM.
Again, the issue here is cost.
It will cost something staying with status qua.
For those asking what else you can do to get a push going on "green" energy...purchase it. This will allow the market to grow IF it's viable. But, don't use tax money, as we need to get our house in order per the Constitution. This is not a fed issue
Here is a great hub about how to invest in green technologies written by marcygoodfleisch. https://hubpages.com/money/How-to-invest-in-eco-fr...
Sue: Just read the hub you mentioned. I a sorry, but I do not have the time or resources to check out all the products I buy. I am 60 and unemployed, I'n not investing my money in green start up companies. The concept is good.Using it is anther story
I don't either, but I thought I'd share the link (lol). It's my aim.
A carbon tax? Really? So the poor should pay a tax for every product that is connected to oil? Food, clothing, anything plastic etc. Are you sure the rich shouldn't jusy pay?
perverse huh? Government has a subsidie that helps oil companies continue producing wells that produce more water than oil.......otherwise the well would be plugged. This sub. gives us energy freedom........
Remember Bill Clinton's BTU tax. His own floor leaders balked at that one. I am proud to say I was part of the LA group to help kill that beast, which never reared its ugly self again.
Is your car sail powered? Is your computer made without plastic? Is your food grown at your house? OIL is the lifeblood of modern life. NOTHING replaces it. Until something does, DRILL BABY DRILL.
i didn't say stop using stuff. I just said that it wouldn't hurt to use some renewable energy to power things like electricity. This world could no lunger run without fossil fuels.
Where does electric come from? COAL AND OIL thats where.
That's what I'm saying, power electricity with renewable energy, and we will have more fossil fuel to use for cars, trains and planes etc..
Wind and solar powered electric are a joke. It would take windmills over the entire state to electrify New York City. The do gooders will not allow hydro-electric damns because of some silly fish.
give it up Gusser, these kids don't get it! I wonder if they know we still burn more wood for energy than green energy? Wood still 4% green energy less than 1%
I'm not in America. I'm not a politician nor am I an energy expert. All I'm saying is if we could harness a little extra renewable energy where possible, we'd have more fossil fuels left over to power the rest of the world for a lot longer.
From Southern California, Metropolitan Water District, one of the biggest water suppliers in the world, is setting up solar panels to power water over the mountains to Los Angeles. People here are pressuring LA to get off coal and they're listening.
Gusser and American Romance, all things must come to an end. It is time for our energy consumption and generating capacity to run on something other than oil and coal. Sure these fuels built the US, but in the long run we can not afford it.
Turbines and solar panels will be devices vulnerable to hurricanes, like we get in Louisiana. That would be in addition to all other damage that the powerlines would still face. Not a good idea.
Not good for your area, Larry, but for Southern California both of those technologies are great. We don't get hurricanes here, and we are heavy users of fossil fuels. (BTW, when I said LA I didn't mean your LA) (lol)
Sue the problems I point out impact Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida and on up the east coast. Solar panels will get less use in the Northeast and Alaska.
Solyndra went bankrupt largely because their ultra-sophisticated technology couldn't compete with simpler, cheaper Chinese panels. As for 'going to jail as they would in the pricate (sic) sector,' no one from Lehman has gone to jail, either.
Solyndra knew their technology was not competitive. Thats why nobody invested in their business except one big fool.
There is a lot of confusion on this issue. I had to research this issue at my last job. I found my original draft. I will be doing a Hub this weekend to explain some of the confusion.
It is a confusing issue because of price speculation; Middle East instability; the permanent environmental costs of extracting oil and more. But oil and gas companies are pigs. They need to give it up.
Pigs because you have said so? These pigs provide YOUR electric, Your gas for YOUR car, Your plastics for YOUR computer, diesel fuel for tractors to plow and plant YOUR food. ETC. WHO'S the pig?
Wow. Guesser is getting really upset here and below. Does mockery really serve this conversation? . . . or maybe we're not being sensitive enough. Guesser, do you work for oil, by any chance? Seriously. We've been pretty hard on oil here.
Don't work for oil--never did. The pig reference was not started by me. You're not hard on oil, they laugh at you.
I did a Hub on this and other related subjects the other day to address a lot of these issues. This hub to long and to hard to keep track of comments. The link to my latest hub is http://larrywall.hubpages.com/hub/Clearing-The-Air...
You take away the subsidies, the oil company pass on their increase cost to the consumer. How long do you think it will be before an alternate is in place and the necessary infrastructure is built.
It will take decades if not longer. That's why we should have been pursuing this issue more diligently decades ago. Will BP pass on the cost to cover their little accident? Probably. Our resources will be gone and we don't have a back up plan.
Daimler, Honda, GM and Ford all have hydrogen fuel cell vehicles out on the road, testing. Honda is developing a home HR fueling station. Germany has a HR mobility plan in action, expecting to switch to hydrogen vehicles by 2015.
Hydrogen: You cannot get enough hydrogen into an airplane for a trans-Atlantic trip. We still need oil for aviation fuel. People in the northeast use home heating oil,who is going to cover their cost to convert--assuming it viable for home use?
Hawaii uses oil to make electricity too, but it doesn't mean they can't find something else. And I'm not talking about hydrogen for everything, just those things it's viable for . . . like cars. Oil will still be around, but better balanced.
The budget losses are not due to the alternate resource finding but using the money in war instead of research. alternate resources are not being sought but the alternate preys.
adram, that is the dumbest answer I ever saw! Budget losses not due to alternate resource..??? Here is a secret for you! NO MATTER how much government or you liberal wackos WANT green energy.............NO BODY ELSE DOES! Free Markets still dictate
Yay! We're starting to shift over. From 1973-2003 the nuclear/fossil fuels industries got $98 B in subsidies, while alternative energy got $26 B. (Then came the wars for oil, which could be considered a huge subsidy itself.) Wikipedia has details.
Sorry: When I see something in Wikipedia, I always look for a second source. There is some good stuff and some junk. Sometimes it is hard to separate.
There are lots of opportunities for investing in green companies and lots of people doing so. There are investment companies that have searched out green companies in which to solely invest their client's money, and they are gaining in popularity.
Question: Why is this a 'liberal' issue? The science and facts are there, fossil fuels are a limited resource. The more we use it, the more we damage our climate, the more engineering we build around fossil fuels, the more dependent we are.
Eugene this is not a liberal issue. Fossil fuels may be limited, but there is enough to sustain us for decades, if not centuries. Science will find the answers you want in due time.
1 answer hidden due to negative feedback. Show
1 answer hidden due to negative feedback. Hide