Big oil asks government to protect it from climate change

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Kharron
Are we all going to get free gas vouchers for building their walls?
.

No, but we do manage to avoid shelling out $7 a gallon like most European countries do.

that extra is all taxes tho the price of the product is the same
taxfoundation.org...

so its not like the oil company getting or not getting something changes anything the govt is the ones who made the prices high

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Kharron
Are we all going to get free gas vouchers for building their walls?
.

No, but we do manage to avoid shelling out $7 a gallon like most European countries do.

That would be because of the favorable pricing toward us in exchange for military help and protection, helping build the pipelines and so on, not because we pump so much of our own we keep the price down.

It has been in the news over the last few weeks that we are ramping up production now under Trump but have not produced much for decades, in comparison to our imports. That means the price has always been low for us due to our contracts, not due to our own oil.

However, now that we are pumping much more than we ever have, you would naturally think we'd got back down to under $1 prices we had a couple of decades ago. Tough chance of that though. Price will remain the same and the taxpayer money will be funneled to cronies so they can dispense larger bonuses for good work.

originally posted by: markovian

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Kharron
Are we all going to get free gas vouchers for building their walls?
.

No, but we do manage to avoid shelling out $7 a gallon like most European countries do.

that extra is all taxes tho the price of the product is the same
taxfoundation.org...

so its not like the oil company getting or not getting something changes anything the govt is the ones who made the prices high

Europe uses the VAT taxes to fund the infrastructure and the costs are passed down to the consumer via the VAT.

originally posted by: Kharron
However, now that we are pumping much more than we ever have, you would naturally think we'd got back down to under $1 prices we had a couple of decades ago.

Not when you consider the increased salaries and fees related to the various stages of oil recovery and refinement.

The US has lower gas prices because we don't have consumers getting slammed by the ridiculously named "value added" taxes Europe is so find if, which are used to finance various GP infrastructure and social projects after the consumers have shelled out money for them.

a reply to: Kharron

Yet another option would be for the trillion dollar industry to take care of itself, without corporate welfare. I understand that when we talk about banking and big oil, people will always find reasons to make it sound vital and therefore the welfare is justified.

But do they not have enough money to take care of themselves? Are we all going to get free gas vouchers for building their walls?

No, this is taxpayer money simply gone to welfare, while we cut social nets like there is no tomorrow.

Priorities. Corporate welfare isn't one.

Of course, as your article stipulates, "Like other oceanfront projects, this one would protect homes, delicate ecosystems and vital infrastructure". So no, it isn't "their walls", it isn't "corporate welfare". Lies and propaganda.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Kharron
However, now that we are pumping much more than we ever have, you would naturally think we'd got back down to under $1 prices we had a couple of decades ago.

Not when you consider the increased salaries and fees related to the various stages of oil recovery and refinement.

The US has lower gas prices because we don't have consumers getting slammed by the ridiculously named "value added" taxes Europe is so find if, which are used to finance various GP infrastructure and social projects after the consumers have shelled out money for them.

You're right, the cost of the operations and the ever rising salaries in the industry are passed down to the consumer.

So back to topic, is that why we should welfare expense these projects? Why should the taxpayers pay these billions in basically welfare, when the companies are more than capable of running their own operations? All of their increased costs are always passed down to us.

I am having a hard time understanding the need to help them out, other than the possible donations to the campaigns of the politicians lobbying the government for that help.

a reply to: Kharron

Because it would just be adding even more costs to pass down to the consumers, which would filter through the entire economy... deliveries would be more expensive, manufacturing of anything would be more expensive, anything which involved even one stage in which oil or gas were used would see a price increase, all to fund projects which would be extremely limited in their scope towards sheltering individual facilities. The current system, these sea walls and storm barriers may be benefitting the oil facilities, but they aren't the only beneficiaries.
apnews.com...

Like other oceanfront projects, this one would protect homes, delicate ecosystems and vital infrastructure

Sea walls work best when they are continuous because water has a nasty habit of going around discontinuous levees or breaks in the revetments.

Let's talk about that a moment while we're at it... "Homes" will be protected. Hmm... shouldn't the construction costs of the wall be born by home owners alone where it it directly sheltering their homes? Would you call the infrastructure project "welfare" where those homeowners are concerned? What about that habitat that will be protected? Shouldn't that cost be picked up by one of the myriad of environmental and nature conservancy charities? What is the taxpayer getting out of saving the nesting ground of the green assed heron? We see where you drew your line, just a bit amused at how blatant you were while drawing it where ya did.

a reply to: Kharron

Big oil asks government to protect it from climate change

Because they want to keep oil going unitl there is none left and they know people are waking up to this and will therefore hold them responsible for their share of global pollution. That could wipe some of them out.

Besides, they know what they are doing, they know the impact of suppressing superior technology and continuing to use oil does in terms of their liability.

originally posted by: Kharron
Did AP say man-made climate change? No.

Well, since I actually read the link and made it all the way to (and past) this second paragraph in the story, I beg to differ:

Like other oceanfront projects, this one would protect homes, delicate ecosystems and vital infrastructure, but it also has another priority — to shield some of the crown jewels of the petroleum industry, which is blamed for contributing to global warming and now wants the federal government to build safeguards against the consequences of it.

Now, I know that this is a concept not really embraced by people these days, but implications and reading between the lines is a pretty neat skill to have when reading things. If you are going to tell me that they didn't reference AGW theory in that underlined portion of the second paragraph, I don't know what to tell you.

This is not about who is causing the climate change, although it is hypocritical for the oil industry to ask for help. This is about the rich industry asking for taxpayer help when they have trillions of dollars available to protect their own assets.

Well, when the rich industry is asking for help in building things that will help protect way more than just their interests, I don't necessarily see the same problem in asking for help in paying for them as you do.

And the only reason that it would be hypocritical is if you, like the AP implies in its story, believe that they're asking for help in paying for a fix to something that they are the sole or primary cause of.

I understand that the only way for some people to discuss these topics is to derail them into something else -- but I'll ask you to get back on topic.

You can ask anything that you want to, but when your claim that the story doesn't reference AGW when it actually does, your belief that I'm off-topic is irrelevant. You are the one that chose to use this story as a catalyst for your rant against the administration that has literally nothing to do with the story (the whole drain-the-swamp part). If anyone went off-topic from the cited story in the OP, it was you. But, alas, it's your OP, so you can go off on any derailment that you choose, it's just not okay for someone else to cite the silliness of it...gotcha.

Do you support taxpayers paying for these private projects?

As I noted in my comment to which you so eloquently responded, I think that society needs to accept reality that sea levels rise and fall all of the time, sometimes dramatically over relatively short periods, and instead of fighting it, we should be adapting to it--up to and including moving away from shorelines as they are swallowed by rising seas (at the "alarming" rate of 1/8th of an inch per year on global average over the last two decades).

As for any short-term solution until migration can (and it should) happen, yes, no matter if it affects one industry more than others, and some people have ideological hatred of said industry, tax dollars should compensate what is "necessary" to "fix" the problem when said fix will protect much more than just the oil industry's investments.