3 3
brenthutch

Green new deal equals magical thinking

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

Now, you asked for specific examples of subsidies to explain how they lead to increased tax revenues equal to or greater than the subsidy. Are you going to be a man of your word and deliver what you said you would?

I never said that subsidies lead to greater tax revenue.  I said the taxes the oil industry provides to federal, state and local coffers, directly and indirectly, is greater than the amount they get in subsidies, as opposed to the renewable industries which receives massive taxpayers handouts and pays very little in taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

I never said that subsidies lead to greater tax revenue.  I said the taxes the oil industry provides to federal, state and local coffers, directly and indirectly, is greater than the amount they get in subsidies, as opposed to the renewable industries which receives massive taxpayers handouts and pays very little in taxes.

We have been through this before. I will take it you are not a man of your word. Can't say I am overly surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your making this more difficult than it needs to be.  Is your point that the world’s oil industry would not survive without government support?  Don’t you realize that there are literally dozens of countries that depend on oil revenues to survive.  I am unaware of any country that supports itself on the revenues generated from wind and solar power.  
 

The notion that subsidies would somehow generate more in taxes is just bizarre and not what I meant at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, brenthutch said:

I am unaware of any country that supports itself on the revenues generated from wind and solar power.  
 

The notion that subsidies would somehow generate more in taxes is just bizarre and not what I meant at all.

Vestas paid EUR 189 million (about 224 million US dollars) as corporate tax in 2019, to Denmark. That's after the tax credits have been deducted.

Source: https://www.vestas.com/~/media/vestas/investor/investor pdf/financial reports/2019/q4/2019_annual_report.pdf.

Not to mention they're just one of many companies there in the wind power industry.

Scotland is another country where wind power is an increasing part of revenues.

6 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I am unaware of any country that supports itself on the revenues generated from wind and solar power.  

That's because you actively deny and ignore any information that disagrees with your narrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Your making this more difficult than it needs to be.  Is your point that the world’s oil industry would not survive without government support?  Don’t you realize that there are literally dozens of countries that depend on oil revenues to survive.  I am unaware of any country that supports itself on the revenues generated from wind and solar power.  
 

The notion that subsidies would somehow generate more in taxes is just bizarre and not what I meant at all.

You are the one that indicated subsidies are a sign of nonviability. Then you argued "net net net" the fossil industry isn't subsidized.

You have been completely unable to support these assertions. You asked for specific examples of subsidies so you could easily show that "net net net" they are not subsidies.

You have been running around in circles ever since then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
8 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Maybe these guys can explain it better than me

https://usa.oceana.org/oil-gas-subsidies-myth-vs-fact

And...reading is also not your strong point.

You do know this article is campaigning against oil and gas subsidies right?

In fact, a nice tidbit from your link:

Quote

In 2010 Exxon Mobil paid a domestic federal income tax rate of just 17%, based on their U.S. pre-tax income of $7.5 billion.13 Literally half the standard corporate tax rate. Worse yet, in 2009, Exxon Mobil paid no U.S. federal income taxes.14,15 That‟s right, 0%. This is because they took advantage of the federal subsidy that allows them to take foreign tax credits on royalties disguised as income taxes.

and another:

Quote

So they use these foreign payments – payments other governments charge them – to both inflate their image as taxpayers and lower their U.S. tax bills, at the same time.

And you fell for it. Typical.

Edited by olofscience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, olofscience said:

And...reading is also not your strong point.

You do know this article is campaigning against oil and gas subsidies right?

In fact, a nice tidbit from your link:

and another:

And you fell for it. Typical.

I am not for subsidizes, never have been.  I was just pointing out the simple fact that oil and gas companies are economically viable and wind and solar need government support.  As the article indicated, oil and gas companies are big boys and don’t need subsidies.  The fact that they get them is an artifact of politics, and cronyism.  As a free marketeer I am against both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so I'm clear - Subsidies for oil is Good on Brent's side, but horrific to behold on the Green side.

All the while - The green side is OK with Solar and Wind subsidies, even though they are much less efficient.

The subsidies are keeping the prices artificially low so the public doesn't get hit in the pocketbook quite so hard. 

That's easy - remove all subsidies and let the market figure it out.

BUT - that would kill green energy, because people are greedy.

Is that about right?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

That's easy - remove all subsidies and let the market figure it out.

BUT - that would kill green energy, because people are greedy.

Is that about right?

If all fossil fuel AND green energy subsidies were removed, both would survive. But renewable energy will actually win out eventually - like electric cars, there's plenty of other reasons to buy them even though Brent thinks upfront cost is everything and that everyone should just buy a Honda like him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, olofscience said:

If all fossil fuel AND green energy subsidies were removed, both would survive. But renewable energy will actually win out eventually - like electric cars, there's plenty of other reasons to buy them even though Brent thinks upfront cost is everything and that everyone should just buy a Honda like him.

The facts would indicate otherwise 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-03/electric-car-sales-fall-for-first-time-after-china-cuts-subsidy

https://www.thegwpf.com/electric-car-sales-stall-after-uk-govt-cuts-subsidies/

I would never presume to tell anyone what kind of vehicle to buy or not to buy, that is what lefties do.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

 

That's easy - remove all subsidies and let the market figure it out.

 

 

 

I'm good with that, just so long as ALL the costs associated with fossil fuels are included.  That would include the costs of remediation and cleanup currently borne by taxpayers or ignored altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

That's easy - remove all subsidies and let the market figure it out.

Absolutely.  No more wars to protect oil sources.  No more oil depletion allowance.  No more Superfund cleanups - if it's oil related, oil companies pay for the cleanup.  Real time pricing for power.  No more Price-Anderson act for nuclear.   Same emissions limits for all power plants - with CO2 limits set to the maximum sustainable CO2 emissions.

Then see what wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, billvon said:

Absolutely.  ... if it's oil related, oil companies pay for the cleanup. ...

Then see what wins.

Thats what bankruptcy is for. So oil companies can pay directors,shareholders and walk away from cleanup costs.

"Oil and gas companies are hurtling toward bankruptcy, raising fears that wells will be left leaking planet-warming pollutants, with cleanup costs left to taxpayers."...

The industry’s decline may be just beginning. Almost 250 oil and gas companies could file for bankruptcy protection by the end of next year, more than the previous five years combined, according to Rystad Energy, an analytics company. ...

Even before the current downturn, methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, was being released from production sites in America’s biggest oil field at more than twice the rate previously estimated, according to a recent study based on satellite data. Some experts say that with the industry in disarray, efforts to fix leaks of methane, which pound for pound can warm the planet more than 80 times as much as carbon dioxide...

The federal government estimates that there are already more than three million abandoned oil and gas wells across the United States, two million of which are unplugged, releasing the methane equivalent of the annual emissions from more than 1.5 million cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

That's easy - remove all subsidies and let the market figure it out.

BUT - that would kill green energy, because people are greedy.

Is that about right?

Almost. For a true level playing field you'd strip the subsidies from fossil fuels completely now, but continue providing them to green energy for about another century, so that they've each had roughly the same support overall.

This is my *massive* bugbear with Brent's constant crying about subsidies and how big oil doesn't need them - he never, ever, ever acknowledges that the fact they're viable now without them is also a product of how long they've had them in the past.

It's the equivalent of a trust fund kid whose parents bought their way into Harvard, complaining that their poorer classmate shouldn't be allowed in if they're using any scholarship funds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mistercwood said:

Almost. For a true level playing field you'd strip the subsidies from fossil fuels completely now, but continue providing them to green energy for about another century, so that they've each had roughly the same support overall.

Fossil fuels have never needed subsidies.  When coal became more economical than wood, it replaced wood.  When kerosene became more economical than whale oil, it replaced whale oil.  That is not to say fossil fuels have never received subsidies, they have just not needed them to survive.  If there were another substance that could power the world’s industrial, transportation, and electrical power needs, and was cheaper, more convenient with no negative impact on the environment I will be the first to support it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

The facts would indicate otherwise 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-03/electric-car-sales-fall-for-first-time-after-china-cuts-subsidy

https://www.thegwpf.com/electric-car-sales-stall-after-uk-govt-cuts-subsidies/

I would never presume to tell anyone what kind of vehicle to buy or not to buy, that is what lefties do.  

I hate to point out the obvious, but electric car subsidies are not renewable energy subsidies, because electric cars are not renewable energy. They're cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
7 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

You were the one to conflate the two

I made an analogy. Let me rephrase: "They'll win out eventually, because of other reasons besides up-front cost, similar to how electric cars are taking market share from ICE cars". Clear enough?

Someone asked if renewable energy was economically sustainable and you offered cars as proof it wasn't.

Is english your first language? Because you really have issues with reading comprehension.

Edited by olofscience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And really, even if I made the mistake conflating it (and I didn't, you just misunderstood what I said), why did you then follow into mixing it up?

Anyway, lots of renewable electricity companies are public companies and their accounts are available for all to see. How much are you willing to bet that they're not profitable and only being propped up by taxpayer subsidies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

3 3