Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (8841)	6/2/2009 1:23:05 AM
From: Sam	1 Recommendation Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 86356

The bottom line is that energy providers often receive subsidies because the overall benefit normally outweighs the costs.... As the article mentioned, the oil industry only receives subsidies worth 1% of their total profit. That is a percentage that is HARDLY an issue in my eyes, given what many competitors are receiving. If the subsidies are so insignificant, then why take anything at all? The oil industry is mature, the supporting infrastructure is in place, we have had many decades of research into how to find it and make the refining and delivery system efficient. Meanwhile, peak oil as well as security and political instability in the major oil producing states are all concerns, even if you believe that climate change is a "hoax." It makes sense to subsidize alternatives in their infancy. Unless perhaps you believe that the alternative sources will never be economically competitive (something that I don't believe).

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (8841)	6/2/2009 1:01:26 PM
From: RetiredNow	Respond to of 86356

Yes, I do think we need to put hundreds of billions into renewable energy, because it will have a positive return on investment. Also, oil subsidies are higher than you say: HALF of the world's population enjoys fuel subsidies. economist.com The Cato Institute, a libertarian think-thank, did a study on the subject. What they found is simply mind-boggling. They calculated that the US spent between $30 to $60 billion (with a 'b') a year safeguarding oil supplies in the Middle East during the 1990s, even though its imports from that region totaled only about $10 billion a year during that period. A more comprehensive study that includes the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and other oil protection services (the coast guard is clearing shipping lanes and doing navigational support to oil tankers, etc) shows that actual subsidies to Big Oil are between $78 to $158 billion (again, with a 'b') per year. huffingtonpost.com The Sustainable Energy Coalition (SEC) released a report titled, "Sensible Energy Policies," in March 2001. The report detailed the various types of subsides oil companies receive: gas and oil loan guarantees, overseas refiner credits, enhanced oil recovery credits, intangible drilling costs credits, and depletion allowances. SEC recommended that each type of subsidy by eliminated by Congress. triplepundit.com oil subsidies in the US are in the range of $20 to $55 billion per year (averaging and rounding off). The high end includes the military costs of "defending" Persian Gulf oil; the low end doesn't. These costs are just for taxes, and don't include all the environmental costs/subsidies associated with oil production and consumption, which would come to another $40 billion to $250 billion per year (averaging and rounding off). The fourth web site has higher estimates for all these costs and includes many more indirect costs. daviesand.com Greenpeace believes Europeans spend about $10 billion or so (USD equivalent) annually to subsidize fossil fuels. By contrast, it thinks the American oil and gas industry might receive anywhere between $15 billion and $35 billion a year in subsidies from taxpayers. cleantech.com Another good site on the whole topic: endoilaid.org