A growing trend

[sparky]

Those aren't subsidies

They're subsidies

They come from governance

~S~

 

[sparky]

More often than not, these hack factories refer to depreciation on capital equipment and other tax breaks available to other businesses and industries as "subsidies"

~S~

 

[SSDD]

Those aren't subsidies

They're subsidies

They come from governance

~S~

Sorry...but they aren't...There is a distinct difference between a tax break and a subsidy...Government gives you tax breaks for your kids...they do not subsidize your kids unless you are on welfare...welfare is a subsidy...

 

[westwall]

Those aren't subsidies

They're subsidies

They come from governance

~S~

No, they are not. They are a tax deduction that industry gets as a cost of business expense.

However, let's say they didn't get them at all. If the same were true of the green companies they would fold up shop in months, the oil companies would keep on truckin.

 

[SSDD]

Those aren't subsidies

They're subsidies

They come from governance

~S~

No, they are not. They are a tax deduction that industry gets as a cost of business expense.

However, let's say they didn't get them at all. If the same were true of the green companies they would fold up shop in months, the oil companies would keep on truckin.

Little wonder that libs are terrible for the economy...they don't know the difference between tax breaks and subsidies...

 

[Oddball]

More often than not, these hack factories refer to depreciation on capital equipment and other tax breaks available to other businesses and industries as "subsidies"

~S~

Cool story....And true story.

 

[sparky]

Friendly policies keep US oil and coal afloat far more than we thought

Energy analysts have made the point again and again that fossil fuels, not renewable energy, most benefit from supportive public policy. Yet this fact, so inconvenient to the conservative worldview, never seems to sink in to the energy debate in a serious way.

Three recent analyses can help. The first does the yeoman’s work of tallying up federal and state energy subsidies. The second shows the effect those subsidies have on oil and gas production. And the third shows how thoroughly the US coal industry is propped up by regulatory policy. Together, they paint a clear picture: The profits of US fossil fuels are built on a foundation of government assistance.

US fossil fuel production is subsidized to the tune of $20 billion annually
Researchers at Oil Change International (OCI) set out to quantify the level of US fossil fuel subsidies, but before we get to their results, a few important caveats.

For one thing, it leaves out the annual $14.5 billion in consumption subsidies — things like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)

It also leaves out subsidies for overseas fossil fuel projects ($2.1 billion a year).

Most significantly, OCI’s analysis leaves out indirect subsidies — things like the money the US military spends to protect oil shipping routes, or the unpaid costs of health and climate impacts from burning fossil fuels. These indirect subsidies reach to the hundreds of billions, dwarfing direct subsidies — the IMF says that, globally speaking, they amount to $5.3 trillion a year. But they are controversial and very difficult to measure precisely.

These kinds of obscure tax loopholes and accounting tricks are not widely known or debated, partially because you have to be a tax lawyer to understand them, and partially because they are simply old.

How does this compare to renewable energy subsidies? In terms of permanent tax expenditures, fossil fuels beat renewables by a 7-1 margin:

If the endless debate over energy subsidies has taught me anything, it’s that nobody thinks their own subsidy is a subsidy — and no one outside think tanks and universities really gives a damn about the economic distortions of subsidies as such. Everyone thinks their favored energy sources deserve support and the other guys’ don’t.


In the 2015-2016 election cycle, oil, gas, and coal companies spent $354 million in campaign contributions and lobbying and received $29.4 billion in federal subsidies in total over those same years — an 8,200% return on investment.

Not bad.

~S~

 

[SSDD]

Friendly policies keep US oil and coal afloat far more than we thought

Energy analysts have made the point again and again that fossil fuels, not renewable energy, most benefit from supportive public policy. Yet this fact, so inconvenient to the conservative worldview, never seems to sink in to the energy debate in a serious way.

Three recent analyses can help. The first does the yeoman’s work of tallying up federal and state energy subsidies. The second shows the effect those subsidies have on oil and gas production. And the third shows how thoroughly the US coal industry is propped up by regulatory policy. Together, they paint a clear picture: The profits of US fossil fuels are built on a foundation of government assistance.

US fossil fuel production is subsidized to the tune of $20 billion annually
Researchers at Oil Change International (OCI) set out to quantify the level of US fossil fuel subsidies, but before we get to their results, a few important caveats.

For one thing, it leaves out the annual $14.5 billion in consumption subsidies — things like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)

It also leaves out subsidies for overseas fossil fuel projects ($2.1 billion a year).

Most significantly, OCI’s analysis leaves out indirect subsidies — things like the money the US military spends to protect oil shipping routes, or the unpaid costs of health and climate impacts from burning fossil fuels. These indirect subsidies reach to the hundreds of billions, dwarfing direct subsidies — the IMF says that, globally speaking, they amount to $5.3 trillion a year. But they are controversial and very difficult to measure precisely.

These kinds of obscure tax loopholes and accounting tricks are not widely known or debated, partially because you have to be a tax lawyer to understand them, and partially because they are simply old.

How does this compare to renewable energy subsidies? In terms of permanent tax expenditures, fossil fuels beat renewables by a 7-1 margin:

If the endless debate over energy subsidies has taught me anything, it’s that nobody thinks their own subsidy is a subsidy — and no one outside think tanks and universities really gives a damn about the economic distortions of subsidies as such. Everyone thinks their favored energy sources deserve support and the other guys’ don’t.


In the 2015-2016 election cycle, oil, gas, and coal companies spent $354 million in campaign contributions and lobbying and received $29.4 billion in federal subsidies in total over those same years — an 8,200% return on investment.

Not bad.

~S~

So you found some blog writers who also don't know the difference between tax breaks and subsidies. If your point was to demonstrate anything other than that liberals in general don't know the difference between subsidies and tax incentives, you failed.

 

[ReinyDays]

Fines imposed by the courts are not tax deductible for your company or mine ... not unless Congress passes a special one-time-only law ... like what BP got for the fines due to the Deep Water Horizon incident ... why should BP get a special one-time expense deduction that no one else is allowed? ...

How about Federal tolls on inland waterways? ... transporting petroleum products is exempt from these tolls ...

Why is every other industry who leases Federal lands required to submit an Environmental Impact Statement except for fracking operations? ...

We either pay at the pump or on our 1040 ... I'm not saying this is right, I'm not saying this is good; I'm just saying this is the way it is ...

 

[Oddball]

Friendly policies keep US oil and coal afloat far more than we thought

Energy analysts have made the point again and again that fossil fuels, not renewable energy, most benefit from supportive public policy. Yet this fact, so inconvenient to the conservative worldview, never seems to sink in to the energy debate in a serious way.

Three recent analyses can help. The first does the yeoman’s work of tallying up federal and state energy subsidies. The second shows the effect those subsidies have on oil and gas production. And the third shows how thoroughly the US coal industry is propped up by regulatory policy. Together, they paint a clear picture: The profits of US fossil fuels are built on a foundation of government assistance.

US fossil fuel production is subsidized to the tune of $20 billion annually
Researchers at Oil Change International (OCI) set out to quantify the level of US fossil fuel subsidies, but before we get to their results, a few important caveats.

For one thing, it leaves out the annual $14.5 billion in consumption subsidies — things like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)

It also leaves out subsidies for overseas fossil fuel projects ($2.1 billion a year).

Most significantly, OCI’s analysis leaves out indirect subsidies — things like the money the US military spends to protect oil shipping routes, or the unpaid costs of health and climate impacts from burning fossil fuels. These indirect subsidies reach to the hundreds of billions, dwarfing direct subsidies — the IMF says that, globally speaking, they amount to $5.3 trillion a year. But they are controversial and very difficult to measure precisely.

These kinds of obscure tax loopholes and accounting tricks are not widely known or debated, partially because you have to be a tax lawyer to understand them, and partially because they are simply old.

How does this compare to renewable energy subsidies? In terms of permanent tax expenditures, fossil fuels beat renewables by a 7-1 margin:

If the endless debate over energy subsidies has taught me anything, it’s that nobody thinks their own subsidy is a subsidy — and no one outside think tanks and universities really gives a damn about the economic distortions of subsidies as such. Everyone thinks their favored energy sources deserve support and the other guys’ don’t.


In the 2015-2016 election cycle, oil, gas, and coal companies spent $354 million in campaign contributions and lobbying and received $29.4 billion in federal subsidies in total over those same years — an 8,200% return on investment.

Not bad.

~S~

Even if you concede all that, the argument still boils down to whataboutism, which itself isn't an argument.

 

[mamooth]

Even if you concede all that, the argument still boils down to whataboutism, which itself isn't an argument.

Nope. Whataboutism involves shifting the topic to something unrelated and minor.

Fossil fuel subsidies are directly related to the discussion. Pointing out their sky-high level destroys the kook conspiracy theory that it's renewables are special for getting any subsidies.

 

[Oddball]

Even if you concede all that, the argument still boils down to whataboutism, which itself isn't an argument.

Nope. Whataboutism involves shifting the topic to something unrelated and minor.

Fossil fuel subsidies are directly related to the discussion. Pointing out their sky-high level destroys the kook conspiracy theory that it's renewables are special for getting any subsidies.

Wrong again, kooky kitty....

Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.

Whataboutism - Wikipedia

 

[mamooth]

You're just another virtue signaling ideologue, who really doesn't give a flying fuck about the environment.

So, no more kook stories of toxic batteries? That was your obvious whataboutism, and you certainly shut about it quickly.

Here's a challenge.

You point to the spots in north america polluted by batteres.

We'll point to the spots in North America polluted by coal ash, tar sands, mountaintop removal. refineries, etc.

We'll have gobs. You'll have zilch, because you're a virtue signalling ideologue who doesn't give a flying fuck about the environment.

And good luck with that "FOSSIL FUEL TOXIC WASTE RULES!" jihad.

 

[Oddball]

You're just another virtue signaling ideologue, who really doesn't give a flying fuck about the environment.

So, no more kook stories of toxic batteries? That was your obvious whataboutism, and you certainly shut about it quickly.

Here's a challenge.

You point to the spots in north america polluted by batteres.

We'll point to the spots in North America polluted by coal ash, tar sands, mountaintop removal. refineries, etc.

Lithium and cadmium mines are located in numerous places around the world other than in North Murica....Pretty weak attempt, even for you, Kooky Kat.

 

[ReinyDays]

I think a couple of degrees warming in a good thing ... so I'll go ahead and burn a mess of fossil fuels here to post my opinion ... plants are trying to kill us ...

 

[SSDD]

I think a couple of degrees warming in a good thing ... so I'll go ahead and burn a mess of fossil fuels here to post my opinion ... plants are trying to kill us ...

At least it would get us back to the temperatures that existed prior to the onset of the little ice age.

 

[Dick Foster]

Solar will soon surpass other means of generating electricity, as it is completely scalable, and batteries make it 24/7;

Cheap at Last, Batteries Are Making a Solar Dream Come True

Apparently you never paid attention in any science, math of economics class. Solar and batteries are hyped for fools and technical illiterates only.

 

[ReinyDays]

I think a couple of degrees warming in a good thing ... so I'll go ahead and burn a mess of fossil fuels here to post my opinion ... plants are trying to kill us ...

At least it would get us back to the temperatures that existed prior to the onset of the little ice age.

Fuck that ... mid-Cretaceous ... + 20ºC ... ice sucks ...

 

[SSDD]

I think a couple of degrees warming in a good thing ... so I'll go ahead and burn a mess of fossil fuels here to post my opinion ... plants are trying to kill us ...

At least it would get us back to the temperatures that existed prior to the onset of the little ice age.

Fuck that ... mid-Cretaceous ... + 20ºC ... ice sucks ...

Since ice and cold is the anomaly on this planet, not the norm, I would agree with you...but I enjoy the occasional snowfall...