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.

 

US taxpayers subsidising world's biggest fossil fuel companies

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Shell, ExxonMobil and Marathon Petroleum got subsidises granted by politicians who received significant campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry

www.theguardian.com...

Growth at all costs: climate change, fossil fuel subsidies and the Treasury


The UK oil and gas industry receives huge government subsidy, while support for renewable energy is cut. Is Treasury control of Whitehall fuelling a shortsighted economic agenda?

www.theguardian.com...

Fossil fuels subsidised by $10m a minute, says IMF


‘Shocking’ revelation finds $5.3tn subsidy estimate for 2015 is greater than the total health spending of all the world’s governments

www.theguardian.com...

edit on 20-11-2015 by Paradeox because: Editing.




posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Don't worry, It's OK. Only giving money to help the poor will bankrupt the country. Giving to the rich is fine



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   
wonder how much gas would cost without subsidies,,,,, $8 or $10 a gallon?
Hmmm



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
wonder how much gas would cost without subsidies,,,,, $8 or $10 a gallon?
Hmmm


This is the USA we're talking about. If we let the fossil fuel companies die-defund them-new innovative companies would take their places. And even if gas went up to 8-10 a gallon, we could offset that with either lower taxes to compensate or free healthcare...eitherway we'd be ahead.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
wonder how much gas would cost without subsidies,,,,, $8 or $10 a gallon?
Hmmm


Wouldn't that mean renewables are cheaper all around?



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Paradeox

This is strong evidence of the corporate oligarchy that the US has become.

What really irks me is when discussing curbing CO2 emissions, so many try to tell us CO2/burning fossil fuels regulations are a scam to levy more taxes, while completely ignore this not so convenient reality that their taxes are already being used to subsidize big oil.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
wonder how much gas would cost without subsidies,,,,, $8 or $10 a gallon?
Hmmm


They should be giving it away at the rate they kill people in wars. I know what your saying though, I read the Forbes article on it.


I still don't agree with it though, they are just bloating their costs to continue record profits year after year.
edit on 20-11-2015 by amicktd because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   
The oil companies are not being handed tax payer money. The goverment doesn't write them a check.
These subsidies are tax breaks for the oil companies.

Here is a page explaining it in more detail.

www.motherjones.com...



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Paradeox

No matter if this story is true ....

How many times and how hard need people to be slapped (read; wacked) in the face before hitting back..?

(This is a rethorical question...)


edit on 20/11/2015 by zatara because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   
This is a couple years old but it's still a valid link.

www.triplepundit.com...


$12.75 a gallon according to this article.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   

The scientists say they can pull about 97 percent of the dissolved carbon dioxide from the water and convert about 60 percent of the extracted gases into hydrocarbons that can be made into fuel at the cost of approximately $3 to $6 per gallon.


Read more: www.smithsonianmag.com...


Seems like there are some more cost-effective fuel alternatives now.
edit on 20-11-2015 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi


The article also said this..

"One report calculates that you’d have to process close to nine million cubic meters of water to make 100,000 gallons of fuel, and that’s assuming 100 percent efficiency. Assume far less efficiency, and you have to assume much more water."

Everything has its drawbacks I guess.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

How do you figure that s a drawback?

Processing doesn't mean destroying. They would need to process a lot of water to extract the carbon.

Also once fuel is burned it returns to its elemental forms when it leaves as exhaust.


$3 to $6 dollars to make a gallon vs $12.75 and the less expensive route is carbon neutral if clean energy is used to power the process.


What are the drawbacks?



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

One big drawback is that the United States along uses 9 million gallons of gas a day.
Do the math on that one.
100k gallons takes 9 million cubic meters of water.
Now multiply by 90 to get the equivalent amount needed.
That's 8 billion cubic meters of water a day to make the required fuel.

There is also the methane problem described in the article.g

"Then, if 60 percent of the gas is converted, what happens to the other 40 percent, including the 25 percent that becomes environmentally unfriendly methane?"


edit on 20-11-2015 by Bluntone22 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-11-2015 by Bluntone22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

So there needs to be more than one processing facility. Maybe as many facilities to process sea water as there are facilities to process oil.


That sounds doable. Finding the water is easy they will not even need to drill for it.



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

I just saw your edit including the problem of methane.


Methane wouldn't be a problem because methane can also be used as fuel. So the problem actually is an advantage.


Renewable Natural Gas (Biomethane) Production


Let us not forget that methane is a byproduct of the oil industry and most of the time due to the remote locations of the wells they simply burn it.






edit on 21-11-2015 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
7

log in

join