SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (46518)10/15/2010 8:34:09 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 71588
 
The cost of our navy is simply not a subsidy for fossil fuels. If Iowa was found to have eighty times as much oil as Saudi Arabia, we would not substantially shrink our navy because of that fact, likely we wouldn't shrink it at all. And even if we would massively shrink it that still doesn't make the cost of the navy (which I mention because you posted about defending sea lanes, but you could substitute "the military" and the point would be the same) a subsidy, any more than the cost of police forces are subsidies to banks because the cops investigate bank robberies.

The per unit of energy subsidy for wind and solar energy isn't just more than the subsidy for fossil fuels, its vastly more. And its more crucial to their continued operation. Without subsidies (broadly but not insanely broadly defined) wind power and solar power efforts mostly go away.

Actually the "subsidy" for gasoline and diesel fuel is negative. They are taxed much more than the subsidy for their production, in fact they are taxed at a higher level than the profits the oil companies derive from their production. Its a big money maker for the government, not a situation where the government bears a cost in order to drive certain forms of fuel use.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext