It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Wants To End Oil Subsidies, Use The Money For Alt-Fuels

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 08:36 PM
link   
we saw this with all the alternative "green initiatives" subsidies that were to increase jobs and lost tax payers money.

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

Feel good programs do nothing but take taxpayers money one way or another. even if its higher cost for all products because of higher shipping cost.

blog.heritage.org...




posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 




That is outstanding idealism and it's what forms progress. I agree. We absolutely DO need to move away from fossil fuels. They're ineffecient, pollution heavy in most forms and physically hard on the land like nothing else, in all forms.


Why does fuel have to be partially payed for by the taxpayer?

If they are not subsidized, then the people who actually require transportation will actually have to bear the actual costs of the fuel. This actually reduces overall costs. They will then seek alternate options to improve fuel efficiency, alternate fuel sources, or will move closer to where they need to work (for example). I commute 80 miles a day and pay $5.25 USD per US Gallon, so I take public transport for most of the journey. Soon I will move closer to work so I can save money on fuel and use the saved time simultaneously work harder and relax more.

Point is, subsidizing fuel encourages inefficient behavior. Removing subsidies encourages efficient behavior.

The point of subsidizing alternative fuels is to help them initially develop and because they are an alternative to extremely polluting methods. Arguably you could say that it reduces overall costs by reducing the external costs of fossil fuels (i.e. health issues from pollution, environmental damage). But yes, it is not as economical as going with no subsidies for everything.


to have a functional economy before the alternatives fully mature?

If fossil fuels are being subsidized then the alternatives won't develop or mature or rather, this will occur at a much slower rate.

Also how do you propose to move away from fossil fuels?


Unfortunately, no one took shale oil seriously either (it had been found and developed for recovery in the 70's) because the prices weren't high enough to make that recovery method profitable. So...with higher prices came more push for alternatives, but also brought profit to one of the single most destructive methods man has yet devised to get the stuff.

Keep in mind that subsidizing oil encourages consumption of oil. The market rate for oil will therefore rise and it will become more economical for unconventional methods of oil extraction. This is even though the cost at the pump will be lower than it would otherwise be.


reply to post by ANNED
 



Tesla Repays Its Government Loan 9 Years Early


DETROIT (Reuters) - Electric carmaker Tesla Motors Inc. on Wednesday paid off its U.S. Department of Energy loan nine years earlier than required, using money raised last week in a stock and debt offering.
The automaker said on Wednesday that it wired $451.8 million to repay the full loan with interest.

"I would like to thank the Department of Energy and the members of Congress and their staffs that worked hard to create the (Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing) program, and particularly the American taxpayer from whom these funds originate," Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk said in a statement. "I hope we did you proud."

Read more: www.businessinsider.com...


Tesla Plans $5 Billion Battery Factory for Mass-Market Electric Car
edit on 16/3/14 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 16/3/14 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 16/3/14 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 16/3/14 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 16/3/14 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 16/3/14 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 16/3/14 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 16/3/14 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by AlaskanDad
 


It always helps to pit things into perspective, rather than to follow what you are told as "gospel" or repeat baseless propaganda without looking deeper.

Unless you intend to mislead from the outset.

Here's what the U. S. government actually measured for energy subsidies and tax-breaks"


www.cbo.gov...

If you are actually interested in looking at totals, here's a few facts:
Energy subsidies $24 billion
Fossil fuels $3,2 billion
Renewable energy $16 billion

Oil taxes $32 billion
Renewables taxes $0


The federal government spent $24 billion on energy subsidies in 2011, with the vast majority going to renewable energy sources, according to a government report.
Renewable energy and energy efficiency accounted for $16 billion of the federal support, according to the Congressional Budget Office, while the fossil-fuel industry received $2.5 billion in tax breaks.

Energy subsidies total $24 billion, most to renewable

C.B.O.: recent Growth in Subsidies for Renewables and Efficiency

A recent report from the Congressional Budget Office found that in 2011 federal support for fuel and energy technology development and production was $24 billion. Of this, $20.5 billion, or 85%, was in the form of “tax preferences—such as special deductions, special tax rates, tax credits, and grants in lieu of tax credits”; the remainder was made up by the Department of Energy’s spending programs. Of the total $24 billion provided in 2011, about $16 billion, or 78%, went toward support of renewables, energy efficiency, and alternative vehicles.
According to the report, historically energy-related tax preference support was “primarily intended to stimulate domestic production of oil and natural gas. With the enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, energy-related tax preferences grew substantially, and an increasing share of them were aimed at encouraging energy efficiency and energy produced from renewable sources, such as wind and the sun. Although tax preferences for fossil fuels continued to make up the bulk of all energy-related tax incentives through 2007, by the end of 2008, fossil fuels accounted for only a third of the total cost of energy-related tax incentives.”

www.cbo.gov...


If you consider how much the "renewables" industry contributes to the economy (and ignore the net-higher costs of the energy itself) the difference between Obama's incentivized "green" mythology becomes apparent.


ExxonMobil in 2011 made $27.3 billion in cash payments for income taxes. Chevron paid $17 billion and ConocoPhillips $10.6 billion.

And income taxes isn’t even the half of it–literally. Exxon also recorded more than $70 billion last year in sales taxes ($33.5 billion) and other taxes and duties ($43.5 billion).

Which Mega Corps Pay Mega Taxes?

Again, perception and reality often differ, depending upon your willingness to consider facts, or rejection of them in favor of "policy" or political subservience.

jw



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by AlaskanDad
 


The best thing that could happen to us is for gas prices to skyrocket. Then we would HAVE to start using alternative fuels on a large enough scale to drive innovation to lower the cost and create a supply infrastructure. Already they are starting to sell solar panel kits for homes. When we reach the point where you can solarize your house enough to power the home and an electric car, oil is for the most part, finished. Its coming and I cant wait for the day all the oil corporatists are out of business for good.



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 08:16 AM
link   
The problem with the world is that a few greedy (they view themselves as enterprising) people take some things that belong to everyone on the planet by any means necessary, by staking false claim, by murder, by war (same thing as murder really), by buying politicians, and have convinced the people that this is the normal course of things...for the very few to make a profit reselling these things that belong to everyone back to the people who really own it.

There are some things that maybe no one should profit from. Charge just enough to recover your costs in getting it to those who need it (without lying about what it cost you while you're at it). You think it's bad now with oil and gas? Wait until water becomes scarcer. Wait till they find a way to start charging you for the sun. They like us to think that without them we would be cast back into the dark ages. Well we wouldn't.

ETA: And what the person above me said too.
edit on 3/16/2014 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ANNED
 

Now delve into the reasons behind the failures. The real reasons. Even if you have to use your imagination.

Clue for you: The oil and gas companies are going to use any means they need to use to stop alternatives from succeeding until they squeeze every drop of profit they can from this earth and until they can figure out ways to overtake the alternatives and charge you for water and the sun.



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 



Why does fuel have to be partially payed for by the taxpayer?


There have been good reasons for it in the past and those same Oil companies that are screaming like spoiled school girls because their barrel price falls below $90 or something, were running $20-$30 per barrel and living with it before 2001. They were on very thin profit margins back then though, and then, it made some sense.

So, I have no sympathy for them. None, in fact. Whatsoever. The Keystone XL Pipeline is just the insult onto injury to really piss off those not fiercely loyal already.

Having said that... What's worse than corrupt private sector? "Well intentioned" government.

The problem here is a simple one and it's not a matter of comfort. We surpassed that level years ago for whatever margins our economy had left to absorb more shocks. There was a time where $1 bump in gas prices DID mean A LOT......... These days tho? You're paying directly for every raise in pump price twice. First...you pay it to drive, if you do. Second, trucking freight invoices have a special line item called a fuel surcharge. It's a rather new invention...or it is to me anyway, since it wasn't a normal feature until the wild rides following 9-11. The rate mileage is multiplied to arrive at the surcharge is indexed regularly to a national benchmark on energy pricing. So you literally do feel the hit in a grocery store, sometimes, before the pump itself.

How much more damage do we WANT to do to our own economy and our own ability to live......so we can feel good? The Oil companies need checked. Fine. I agree... Can we please get our busted economy working a LITTLE before taking on the big hits a financial war between Uncle Sam and Oil will bring? Not considering things like this are how "small" bad ideas over several years have accumulated to a real national mess we're in now.



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ANNED
 


>heritage foundation

>reliable source

>pick one



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   

ketsuko
Except that we already heavily subsidize alternative fuels.

So if we're going to end the so-called subsidies on oil, can we also end them on alternative fuels?

Why not charge every single industry and corporation the exact same flat rate, with no after tax subsidy (which is what alternative fuel companies get), no exemptions (which is what oil companies claim)?

Oh, I know, if we did that, then politicians wouldn't be able to create these nifty sound bites to make you think that some businesses are evil while others are good and this pick their own favored winners and losers while also attempting to buy your votes at the same time.

All hail corporatism and the fascist state!


No we really don't. There is some subsidy's for ethanol but they are small in comparison to the oil subsidies. They really benefit corn farmers far more than the ethanol producers.

He is talking about subsidizing next generation biofuels, and there is huge promise there, once cellulostic sugar can be cheaply removed from plants, (any plants) they will be able to be cost competitive with oil. There is no reason to worry about land usage, only water. But there is promising work on being able to use seawater for growing plants as well, and we have plenty of that. All oil is is the remains of plants crushed and heated by millions of years under the earths surface. I don't think that it is a matter of if but when we master getting sugars out of plants cheaply. Truthfully if you add up all the subsidies, and the cost to keep troops in the middle east, biofuels are already cost competitive with the true cost of oil.

Normally I am not really for government funding, but venture funding has mostly dried up for biofuels. Venture capitalists want quick payoffs and this has not been a quick problem to solve, however we are much much closer to solving it now than many people realize. This is actually a real problem in general, as long as every stupid internet gimmick can IPO for a million times its true value, why would they want to invest in something risky even if it will payoff huge if successful. This is also why nobody will build something like the hyperloop. The biofuel problem is one that will need to be solved, the sooner we solve it the better for everyone.

With all that said, I doubt this will happen because I am a realist about how Washington really works.



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by proximo
 


I could be wrong but this looked pretty lopsided and hard driven for the Alternative side under Obama as a recent year showed?


NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The federal government spent $24 billion on energy subsidies in 2011, with the vast majority going to renewable energy sources, according to a government report.

Renewable energy and energy efficiency accounted for $16 billion of the federal support, according to the Congressional Budget Office, while the fossil-fuel industry received $2.5 billion in tax breaks.

This is a stark change from a decade ago. The CBO noted that until 2008, most energy subsidies went to the fossil-fuel industry. The idea at the time was to encourage more domestic oil production, especially when the price of oil was low.
Source

Bush was an oil man to his hard little core, but Obama is just a politician. He'll bow to whomever butters his bread best. As a lame duck, he doesn't need votes, and was leaning toward alternatives even when he did. Now he just needs the Sierra Club and others to protest somewhere other than his house or vacation spots, so he'll cater to the loudest folk, IMO. That isn't Oil by any means, in the current national climate.

Just my thoughts.



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Well, I looked at that but that money for fuels is almost all going towards biodiesel and ethanol which are both first generation biofuels. Keep in mind a lot of that money is for solar and electric car subsidies also.

I don't believe first gen biofuels will ever make sense so I would be generally in favor of stopping those. There are a few companies attempting to do cellulostic ethanol now however its costs are no better than corn ethanol currently. It may lead to a breakthrough on cellulostic sugar recovery eventually though, but in general I do not think subsidizing ethanol in general is a good idea.

We need drop in replacement fuels, superior to fossil fuel derived ones in every way - there are many companies that can already produce them it is just a matter of driving the cost down.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   

marg6043
reply to post by buster2010
 


The way Obama has been using his executive pen I would not be surprised that he may try to do it his way. Lets wait and see.


Do some checking Obama hasn't been using his executive pen nearly as much as other presidents. But don't let facts get in your way of thinking.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   
The government spends billions and billions of dollars subsidizing the immensely profitable Oil and Gas industry. Those subsidies help pad the profits of the wealthiest Americans. Meanwhile, we pay a pittance in subsidies to foster Renewable energies - something that will become critical in the future.

We tradeoff short-term profits for the wealthiest for future development of renewable energies, which will surely leave us far behind other nations as energy reserves become increasingly critical.

Once again we should thank our corporate lobbyists for leaving our nation behind the 8-ball.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Of course it needs to be a methodical and sane changeover, such that large scale disruption does not occur. As my energy professors says, we must change the way capital is allocated to begin to encourage or support alternative energy sources. We will continue to need substantial fossil fuels for a while. But a mature citizen and policy maker, faced with both environmental concerns and climate change, begins the planning and moves in the right direction. The citizens and policy makers who say there is no problem or no need for change are just irresponsible and uneducated, with all due respect of course.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Quetzalcoatl14
 


That is outstanding idealism and it's what forms progress. I agree. We absolutely DO need to move away from fossil fuels. They're ineffecient, pollution heavy in most forms and physically hard on the land like nothing else, in all forms.

However, no one gives extra points for martyrdom here, and if we hurt the fuel we require...absolutely require..to have a functional economy before the alternatives fully mature? No one will care but to laugh at our own folly of cutting off our nose to spite our face.

Granted, the $1 or less a gallon I paid before 9/11 and right up to the day before, actually....will never return in our lifetimes. That's a shame, but good too, in that no one took anything about alternatives seriously without higher rates to push.

Unfortunately, no one took shale oil seriously either (it had been found and developed for recovery in the 70's) because the prices weren't high enough to make that recovery method profitable. So...with higher prices came more push for alternatives, but also brought profit to one of the single most destructive methods man has yet devised to get the stuff. Mixed bag to say the least.

In the end though, given how MANY ways our economy is under pressure and stress from so many different "Doh! This looks like a great idea!" initiatives and programs started in recent years, we need to stop doing MORE injury to what directly sustains and supports our ability to live above 3rd world poverty levels.

The fact some folks cannot, to save their own futures...see the straight line of connection to these things, is truly scary at times.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14


The citizens and policy makers who say there is no problem or no need for change are just irresponsible and uneducated, with all due respect of course.


Yeah... anyway...

Yes, we most definitely do need to see more alternative energy development. What we don't need is Government meddling into the markets to try forcing it. (Or everyone and their brother suing every attempt to build what we agree we WANT)

"Allocation of resources"? Yup.. I know the term real well. I dropped the Enviro science course I was in after coming to a point of having two choices. I could drop it and walk, taking discretion as the better part of valor or I could bring the man before the administration (for starters) for academic fraud and deliberate deception in the classroom. That's not empty. I had and HAVE pages of notes taken during his class with fact checked sourcing to academic and scientific sources to back every point, had I been forced to.

So..forgive me if this particular topic doesn't see me impressed by those "teaching it", if that's really the term we have to use.

I set out months ago to learn from the data, the journal articles and the science itself. Not interpreted by anyone WITHOUT the credentials to write one themselves. Simply reading from those who, personally, directly, and to their OWN credit did the work or were directly IN the projects which DID. On this, more than any single thing in society today, I'd encourage everyone to do the same. The truth ain't what "the book" says it is in enough cases to be startling, very early on in any serious effort to fact check it. All my opinion, of course.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   
But it seems as if you are making some kind of generality without discussing any specific theory or assertion in the field of energy or environment.

Of course some of it is contentious. But much is not. That which is not may see variance in what experts say we should do about it. For example, I am studying energy as we speak in graduate school under top energy experts of all stripes. I'm also studying with top development experts and practitioners. In regards to the environment the ecological impact of humans, whether that be land use, pollution, or species endangerment and biodiversity loss, is incontrovertible. The data and countless peer-reviewed studies speak for themselves.

Now energy, people may argue about fossil fuels, but generally speaking several really do seriously pollute our biosphere and climate systems, especially coal and gas/oil. It's also well reviewed, replicated data. None of the energy experts that I know of truly doubt that. They may vary in their solutions to that problem or how quickly we need to move.

Even the big oil companies are having to recognize the data and truth of the matter. They no longer deny all of the above.



originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14


The citizens and policy makers who say there is no problem or no need for change are just irresponsible and uneducated, with all due respect of course.


Yeah... anyway...

Yes, we most definitely do need to see more alternative energy development. What we don't need is Government meddling into the markets to try forcing it. (Or everyone and their brother suing every attempt to build what we agree we WANT)

"Allocation of resources"? Yup.. I know the term real well. I dropped the Enviro science course I was in after coming to a point of having two choices. I could drop it and walk, taking discretion as the better part of valor or I could bring the man before the administration (for starters) for academic fraud and deliberate deception in the classroom. That's not empty. I had and HAVE pages of notes taken during his class with fact checked sourcing to academic and scientific sources to back every point, had I been forced to.

So..forgive me if this particular topic doesn't see me impressed by those "teaching it", if that's really the term we have to use.

I set out months ago to learn from the data, the journal articles and the science itself. Not interpreted by anyone WITHOUT the credentials to write one themselves. Simply reading from those who, personally, directly, and to their OWN credit did the work or were directly IN the projects which DID. On this, more than any single thing in society today, I'd encourage everyone to do the same. The truth ain't what "the book" says it is in enough cases to be startling, very early on in any serious effort to fact check it. All my opinion, of course.

edit on 11-5-2014 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14


But it seems as if you are making some kind of generality without discussing any specific theory or assertion in the field of energy or environment.


Generality would be accurate I suppose. The thread is originally about Obama cutting one subsidy to directly boost another side of the same economic sector. The fossil fuel and energy resources debate is and isn't directly wrapped up in that for the action being taken. Artificial manipulation of the economy by the Federal Government is as interesting and the immediate problem, the more I've given it thought.


Now energy, people may argue about fossil fuels, but generally speaking several really do seriously pollute our biosphere and climate systems, especially coal and gas/oil. It's also well reviewed, replicated data.


No argument whatsoever there. Coal can and must be much cleaner. Much cleaner. What is still released can be scrubbed many times better than it currently is. Gas needs to just be phased out as electric vehicle components should get cheaper by development over time. (If Uncle Sam would STOP subsiding who they like, blow the market by doing that in such dollar amounts, to see their choices consistently fail anyway).

It will make the green people mad, but we NEED to get the friggen regulations and 'protections' under control. It's getting to the point that anything not already built on is or will be protected in some form, for some reason. It makes Solar near impossible for large scale building and there are lawsuits holding up big projects in more than one state right now. Wind isn't working, to be sued as EPA issues as well as bird grinders. Off shore, they're ugly, so can't have them there either.

My general yet specific assertion is that Government be there to regulate for safety and control for pollution, but otherwise work to nothing more or less than equal support/regulation to all in the same sector. No subsidy for any of them, across the board. Period. Nothing in Energy. At all. Let the best tech truly rise and fall by it's own merit. (That'll kill ethanol within 6 months, but no loss).



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Intelligent management of our limited resources would be ideal, however that would take the corporation of government and business which scares a lot people because that is socialism.

This is a great idea, it is in the interest of the American people and the health of the planet in general for this to happen. If by some miracle Obama and friends can pull this off I will be impressed and our future generation will look back at it as a monumental moment in human history.

I want to believe this will happen, stories like this remind me of an old saying. Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: proob4
Just wonder if this passes what it would do the the all ready High gas and fuel prices? Maybe this would be the final straw that collapses the economy and the dollar?


WTF? AM I the only one sick of this threat of higher gas prices from the oil barons???

Really? Stop Subsiding the oil companies that already make TRILLIONS in profits...and they will raise our gas prices and crash the economy?

Sounds like bailout (aka Blackmail) logic.

How about this...If we weren't so damn dependent on oil, we wouldn't have bases all over the middle east, there would be no terrorist threat, 911 wouldn't have happened and we wouldn't be paying off two unfunded wars. What would that have saved us in $?

BILLIONS of OUR Money ...taxpayer subsidies...every year going to companies that post TRILIONS in Profits. When they post a loss...just once...we can discuss the possibility of subsidies.

Enough already...
edit on 12-5-2014 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Quauhtli

Only if there those stupid enough to believe that's all it takes....



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join