Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
Romney: 'We’d be a lot better off in this country if we had European gas prices.'
Monday, October 1, 2012 7:24 AM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Quote: WASHINGTON — Mitt Romney, true to his roots as the son of an auto executive, was talking about cars. It was May 2006. Mr. Romney, the Massachusetts governor, was chatting up his Montana counterpart about his vision for an energy-efficient car of the future — lightweight and narrow, with tandem-style seating, so that two vehicles could drive side by side in one highway lane. “He was getting animated about all these little cars that would be driving around in these lanes,” Brian Schweitzer, the Montana governor, recalled in an interview. Mr. Schweitzer, a Democrat, laughed, thinking about how Republicans might react. “I said, ‘Mitt, if you ever run for president, don’t ever talk about that again.’ ” Today, as the Republican nominee for president, Mr. Romney is far more apt to talk about oil drilling than energy-efficient cars. He has presented a plan to open up more land and coastline to oil and gas drilling, grant speedy approval to the Keystone pipeline to transport crude oil from Canada to the United States, end wind and solar power subsidies and curb regulations that discourage burning coal for electricity. It is an agenda far different from the one he outlined in his early days as governor. He populated his Massachusetts administration with environmentalists, including one, Gina McCarthy, who now runs the clean air division of the Environmental Protection Agency under President Obama. He railed against the “Filthy Five,” high-polluting power plants in the state. He issued a “climate protection plan” and lauded it as “among the strongest in our nation.” Under his direction, Massachusetts helped create a regional cap-and-trade program — anathema to most Republicans — intended to cut the greenhouse gas emissions that scientists believe cause global warming. But at the last minute, Mr. Romney refused to sign the greenhouse gas pact that his aides had spent more than two years negotiating; industry opposed it, and some former Romney policy advisers say his political team feared that it would doom his chances for the presidency. A current campaign policy adviser, Oren Cass, said Mr. Romney simply evaluated the proposal and “concluded the costs imposed on the economy would be too high.” Today in Massachusetts, environmentalists credit Mr. Romney with helping to promote smart growth and reducing air pollution by putting in place tough regulations curbing certain toxic emissions from power plants. They also praise him for signing into law a bill embracing oil spill prevention measures. But many feel betrayed by his surprise reversal on the climate change pact. “He was ahead of his time and very progressive,” said Jack Clarke, who was appointed to an ocean management task force by Mr. Romney and now directs public policy at Mass Audubon, a conservation group. “But by the end of his administration, he seemed to have gotten Potomac fever. The conservation agenda he had didn’t seem to be a core conviction.” A Policy Develops Mr. Romney got an up-close lesson in conservation growing up in the Detroit suburb of Bloomfield Hills, Mich., where his father, George, ran the American Motors Corporation. The car company, which like its competitors marketed big, gas-hungry cars, was struggling. George Romney turned the company around by marketing the Rambler — a boxy, no-frills but fuel-efficient vehicle. Time Magazine put him on its cover. “One of the most anticipated announcements at our house every year was the winner of the Mobil Economy Run, and Rambler often won because it achieved 30 miles a gallon or more — not bad even by today’s standards,” Mr. Romney wrote in his book, “No Apology.” “Dad called his competitors’ cars ‘gas guzzling dinosaurs,’ a term that he helped make popular.” Decades later, when he was governor, Mr. Romney remarked to an adviser, Rob Gray, that “we’d be a lot better off in this country if we had European gas prices” because Americans would buy more energy-efficient cars. He also invited Amory B. Lovins, the head of the Rocky Mountain Institute, a nonprofit research organization devoted to energy efficiency, to meet with him in Boston. While Mr. Lovins “shared his vision of a 75 m.p.g. hybrid automobile built with high strength steel and composites,” Mr. Romney wrote, “I shared my own dream for a super-efficient commuter vehicle.”
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 8:11 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Quote:The next time you complain about the price of gas, remember: It's all relative. Filling up the same 39-gallon tank of a Chevrolet Suburban in Venezuela costs $3.51. In Norway it's $394.68.
Quote:Everyone's got an opinion when it comes to gas prices. Here in the U.S., where the average price for a gallon of regular gas has now reached $3.90,--and still climbing-- the onerous price burden falls squarely on the motoring public. And, most of us believe we're already paying enough. Last month U.S. Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu recently said the nation's goal is not to reduce gasoline prices but to reduce the overall dependency on oil. He reasoned that if gasoline's cost becomes prohibitive, we'll be forced to seek energy from sources other than petroleum. In 2008 he told the Wall Street Journal: "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." Around the world, we see that extremely high gasoline prices --by American standards-- have been accepted as part of many nations' taxing systems. This is the case in most European countries, too, whereas in oil-rich nations like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, for instance, many of those countries' governments subsidize oil even at many multiples of what it's worth. In Venezuela, for instance, gasoline sells at around 12 cents per gallon... it's cheaper than water. And in Saudi Arabia it was about 45 cents per gallon, with no tax at all. It's subsidized in Qatar too, where gasoline increased 25 percent to a whopping 88 cents per gallon. (And there's no tax at all.) According to The Atlantic Monthly, which reported on global gasoline prices last year when the U.S. average peaked at $3.96, we see gasoline inflated by extreme taxes imposed in many countries that are simply staggering. Spain has the lowest priced gasoline at $7.60 per gallon; and $3.67 of that is tax. Believe it or not, that's actually the lowest tax burden in Europe. Italy's gasoline is $8.79 per gallon and that includes $4.74 in taxes. (Of course with a nice bottle of Barolo, it's easy to enjoy the countryside and forget about the cost of gasoline.) France is looking at $9.24 with $5.40 of that being taxes. Germany is at 9.07 with $4.88 in taxes. In Portugal you'll pay $9.13 per gallon; $5.13 is tax and the government there has included $1.70 per gallon as a 'value added' tax. In the Czech Republic, motorists pay $8.21 per gallon ($4.39 of which is tax0 which also includes a road tax. Greece and Sweden are both over $9 per gallon and more than $5 of that is tax. Denmark is at $9.69 for gasoline with $5.41 going to taxes. But, the highest tax burden in Western Europe is found in the Netherlands, where gas according to last year's report, was $9.58 per gallon and nearly $6 per gallon goes to taxes. http://blog.gasbuddy.com/posts/Global-gas-prices-might-make-you-grateful/1715-490364-914.aspx#xe4pm1aOBisXZtHQ.99
Quote:Fuel taxes in the United States vary by state. The United States federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon (4.86 ¢/L). On average, as of April 2012, state and local taxes add 31.1 cents to gasoline, for a total US average fuel tax of 49.5 cents per gallon for gas (13.07 ¢/L).
Quote:Comparing gas prices across nations is always difficult. For starters, there is the difference in salaries in different countries. For another, because oil is priced in dollars, rising oil prices aren't as hard on people paying with currencies which are stronger than the dollar, as they can essentially buy more oil with their money as the dollar falls in value. And then there's the varying distances people drive, the public transportation options available, and the different services people get in exchange for high gas prices. For example, Europe's stronger social safety net, including cheaper health care and higher education, is paid for partly through gas taxes. It's all about government policy. Gasoline costs roughly the same to make no matter where in the world it's produced, according to John Felmy, chief economist for the American Petroleum Institute. The difference in retail costs, he said, is that some governments subsidize gas while others tax it heavily. http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/01/news/international/usgas_price/] In other words, if gas prices in the US weren't kept so low via subsidies and low taxes on gas, that money could be used to fund things like health care and education, and paying down the debt. Which brings us to my biggest peeve: Subsidies in the U.S., which go a long ways toward keeping our supposed "gas prices" low, but which we actually pay for with our taxes:Quote:NY Times: "Oil Production Is Among The Most Heavily Subsidized Businesses." The New York Times reported in July 2010 that "an examination of the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process." [The New York Times, 7/3/10]Quote:A fossil fuel subsidy is any government action that lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received by energy producers or lowers the price paid by energy consumers. There are a lot of activities under this simple definition—tax breaks and giveaways, but also loans at favorable rates, price controls, purchase requirements and a whole lot of other things (at http://priceofoil.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/koplowtypesofsubsidy.pdf). How much money does the U.S. government give oil, gas and coal companies? In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually, while even efforts to remove small portions of those subsidies have been defeated in Congress, as shown in the graphic below. FINCapitolOil_infographic_final_2-791x1024.jpg http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/] Details on some of the above:Quote:$2.4 Billion: subsidies to the Big Five producers debated and defeated in the Senate in 2011 and 2012 The Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act, sponsored by Senator Menendez (D-NJ) was debated and defeated by the Senate for two years running, and would have eliminated $2.4 billion in annual tax deductions for the five major oil companies: BP, Exxon, Chevron, Shell and ConocoPhillips. Although the move would have been an initial step, it’s just the tip of the iceberg. So called “independent” oil companies are hardly small businesses. Major integrated oil companies also include Occidental, Amerada Hess, Marathon, Murphy Oil and dozens of others. Together, these companies produced 53.5 percent of U.S. oil in 2009. $4 Billion: Subsidy cuts President Obama proposed in the 2013 budget. President Obama has proposed cutting fossil fuel subsidies every year he’s been in office. The projections for savings have varied slightly each year but always hover around $4 billion annually. Congress has never even proposed voting on all of them. $10 billion. Low end credible comprehensive estimates. Several recent independent estimates of U.S. fossil fuel subsidies all arrive at roughly this number, although they consider slightly different things. Recent studies include those conducted by Management Information Services, Environmental Law Institute, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development – OECD. (The OECD numbers compiled and analyzed here.) $52 billion. Earth Track, an NGO that specializes in subsidy valuation, estimates that annual oil, gas and coal subsidies total about $52 billion annually. Highest credible comprehensive estimate. Includes some costs associated with defending pipelines and shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf, as well as a portion of defense spending. It should be noted that while the estimate of $53 billion in fossil fuel subsidies annually does include some of the cost of U.S. military “defense” of the Persian Gulf region, it does not specifically incorporate any increase in defense spending relating to Iraq, or any quantification of the environmental externalities associated with oil. And none of the amounts cited include fossil fuel subsidies in the form of international aid.Same That's not all. If you take into account the reality that the fossil fuel industry has profound impacts in much bigger ways, there's alsoQuote:Health. A 2009 report by the National Academy of Sciences claims that burning fossil fuels results in about $120 billion per year in health-related costs. Infrastructure spending. The US is already committed to spending at least $1.6 trillion additional dollars per year in maintenance, new vehicles and fuel. We built our power transmission lines on the assumption of large, remote power plants. We build our houses and industries on the assumption of cheap electricity; those practices, codes and regulations are still embedded in our construction and manufacturing sectors. We built our power transmission lines on the assumption of large, remote power plants. Costs from climate change. The costs of accelerating climate change are staggering, and are certainly greater than the costs of ending our dependence on fossil fuels. Whatever the numbers, it seems ludicrous that any of our tax dollars would support such established and profitable industries. These energy subsidies are completely out of step with a nation that now broadly accepts the need to end our collective oil addiction and fight global warming.Same So you can thank our government for keeping gas prices as low as they are, and Congress for resisting ending ANY of those subsidies. They're bought and paid for by Big Oil...both the government and the subsidies. Congress won't even consider eliminating them unless something changes. But if they WERE eliminated:Quote:One of the most obvious benefits of ending fossil fuel subsidies is increasing the availability of public money. The money saved from fossil fuel subsidies could be used to promote clean energy and energy efficiency alternatives, which would be in line with public opinion. A 2010 poll by Stanford University found public support for government action to increase clean energy and energy efficiency. The poll found that 84 percent are in favor of giving companies tax breaks to produce more electricity from water, wind, and solar power; 81 percent want more fuel efficient cars that use less gasoline; 80 percent want more appliances that use less electricity; and 80 percent want more home and office buildings that require less energy to heat and cool. If you look more closely, Congress' most recent resistance to ending subsidies can be laid in large part at the feet of Republicans, despite even minimal efforts by Obama and the Democrats to do so:Quote:For the last several years, President Obama has proposed eliminating $4 billion in oil and gas subsidies from the U.S. budget. While these are not all the subsidies that this mature and very profitable industry enjoys, they are some of the most obvious. But Congress hasn’t yet approved President Obama’s budget cuts. Fossil fuel subsidies have come up in Congress – and rightly so! – in discussions of ways to cut government expenditures in order to balance the budget. In the spring of 2011, there was a push by some legislators to remove subsidies that target only the major oil companies – in particular, the “Big Five” (BP, Exxon, Chevron, Shell, ConocoPhillips). While this would end some of the oil subsidies, it would unfortunately exclude a number of huge companies such as Valero, Koch Industries {ahem...}, Occidental, Anadarko, Amerada Hess, Marathon, Murphy Oil and a number of more diversified energy companies that also produce large quantities of the nation’s oil and gas. In the fall of 2011, there was some hope that fossil fuel subsidy reduction could be included in the Super Committee’s proposal to Congress for $1.5 trillion in deficit-reduction measures over the next ten years. There was support in Congress for this: In an October letter to the Super Committee, 36 House Democrats urged the committee to end subsidies to the fossil fuel industry that would save up to $122 billion over the next ten years. But in the end, it proved to be an uphill battle to get the Super Committee to take a stand on fossil fuel subsidies – and perhaps that’s not so surprising, given the influence of fossil fuel industry money on the Super Committee. Eight Super Committee members received over $300,000 in contributions from the fossil fuel industry since 1999: Senators Baucus (D-MT), Kyl (R-AZ), Portman (R-OH), and Toomey (R-PA), and Representatives Camp (R-MI), Clyburn (D-SC), Hensarling (R-TX), and Upton (R-MI) {note all the Rs}. Calls for subsidy removal tend to be answered by the oil industry and their allies with dire predictions of falling domestic production, loss of jobs, and rising gas prices. But the reality is that removing fossil fuel subsidies (which the industry deceptively calls new taxes) will have little to no impact on domestic production, jobs, or prices at the pump. According to the Treasury Department, removing the domestic subsidies as proposed in the President’s budget would reduce U.S. oil production less than one half of one percent, and will increase exploration and production costs less than two percent. Considering the price that the domestic industry receives for crude has more than doubled over the past several years, the industry can afford that – without laying anyone off or jacking up the price at the pump. The global oil market, not the domestic industry, determines gas prices. Treasury estimates that subsidy removal would cause a loss of less than one tenth of one percent in global oil supply, and thus would have no impact on global or U.S. prices.Same In case you're interested, this shows you how subsidies break down for energy, that those for Big Oil VASTLY outweigh those for any other source of fuel: Note that just a handful of tax breaks make up the largest portion of these subsidies, with the most significant of these, Foreign Tax Credits, supporting the oversease production of oil. Anyone want to talk about "dependence on foreign oil"? It's not about lessening that (which is a misnomer anyway) as much as it is about lessening the corporate welfare WE PAY to use "foreign oil".
Quote:NY Times: "Oil Production Is Among The Most Heavily Subsidized Businesses." The New York Times reported in July 2010 that "an examination of the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process." [The New York Times, 7/3/10]
Quote:A fossil fuel subsidy is any government action that lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received by energy producers or lowers the price paid by energy consumers. There are a lot of activities under this simple definition—tax breaks and giveaways, but also loans at favorable rates, price controls, purchase requirements and a whole lot of other things (at http://priceofoil.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/koplowtypesofsubsidy.pdf). How much money does the U.S. government give oil, gas and coal companies? In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually, while even efforts to remove small portions of those subsidies have been defeated in Congress, as shown in the graphic below. FINCapitolOil_infographic_final_2-791x1024.jpg http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/] Details on some of the above:Quote:$2.4 Billion: subsidies to the Big Five producers debated and defeated in the Senate in 2011 and 2012 The Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act, sponsored by Senator Menendez (D-NJ) was debated and defeated by the Senate for two years running, and would have eliminated $2.4 billion in annual tax deductions for the five major oil companies: BP, Exxon, Chevron, Shell and ConocoPhillips. Although the move would have been an initial step, it’s just the tip of the iceberg. So called “independent” oil companies are hardly small businesses. Major integrated oil companies also include Occidental, Amerada Hess, Marathon, Murphy Oil and dozens of others. Together, these companies produced 53.5 percent of U.S. oil in 2009. $4 Billion: Subsidy cuts President Obama proposed in the 2013 budget. President Obama has proposed cutting fossil fuel subsidies every year he’s been in office. The projections for savings have varied slightly each year but always hover around $4 billion annually. Congress has never even proposed voting on all of them. $10 billion. Low end credible comprehensive estimates. Several recent independent estimates of U.S. fossil fuel subsidies all arrive at roughly this number, although they consider slightly different things. Recent studies include those conducted by Management Information Services, Environmental Law Institute, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development – OECD. (The OECD numbers compiled and analyzed here.) $52 billion. Earth Track, an NGO that specializes in subsidy valuation, estimates that annual oil, gas and coal subsidies total about $52 billion annually. Highest credible comprehensive estimate. Includes some costs associated with defending pipelines and shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf, as well as a portion of defense spending. It should be noted that while the estimate of $53 billion in fossil fuel subsidies annually does include some of the cost of U.S. military “defense” of the Persian Gulf region, it does not specifically incorporate any increase in defense spending relating to Iraq, or any quantification of the environmental externalities associated with oil. And none of the amounts cited include fossil fuel subsidies in the form of international aid.Same That's not all. If you take into account the reality that the fossil fuel industry has profound impacts in much bigger ways, there's alsoQuote:Health. A 2009 report by the National Academy of Sciences claims that burning fossil fuels results in about $120 billion per year in health-related costs. Infrastructure spending. The US is already committed to spending at least $1.6 trillion additional dollars per year in maintenance, new vehicles and fuel. We built our power transmission lines on the assumption of large, remote power plants. We build our houses and industries on the assumption of cheap electricity; those practices, codes and regulations are still embedded in our construction and manufacturing sectors. We built our power transmission lines on the assumption of large, remote power plants. Costs from climate change. The costs of accelerating climate change are staggering, and are certainly greater than the costs of ending our dependence on fossil fuels. Whatever the numbers, it seems ludicrous that any of our tax dollars would support such established and profitable industries. These energy subsidies are completely out of step with a nation that now broadly accepts the need to end our collective oil addiction and fight global warming.Same So you can thank our government for keeping gas prices as low as they are, and Congress for resisting ending ANY of those subsidies. They're bought and paid for by Big Oil...both the government and the subsidies. Congress won't even consider eliminating them unless something changes. But if they WERE eliminated:Quote:One of the most obvious benefits of ending fossil fuel subsidies is increasing the availability of public money. The money saved from fossil fuel subsidies could be used to promote clean energy and energy efficiency alternatives, which would be in line with public opinion. A 2010 poll by Stanford University found public support for government action to increase clean energy and energy efficiency. The poll found that 84 percent are in favor of giving companies tax breaks to produce more electricity from water, wind, and solar power; 81 percent want more fuel efficient cars that use less gasoline; 80 percent want more appliances that use less electricity; and 80 percent want more home and office buildings that require less energy to heat and cool. If you look more closely, Congress' most recent resistance to ending subsidies can be laid in large part at the feet of Republicans, despite even minimal efforts by Obama and the Democrats to do so:Quote:For the last several years, President Obama has proposed eliminating $4 billion in oil and gas subsidies from the U.S. budget. While these are not all the subsidies that this mature and very profitable industry enjoys, they are some of the most obvious. But Congress hasn’t yet approved President Obama’s budget cuts. Fossil fuel subsidies have come up in Congress – and rightly so! – in discussions of ways to cut government expenditures in order to balance the budget. In the spring of 2011, there was a push by some legislators to remove subsidies that target only the major oil companies – in particular, the “Big Five” (BP, Exxon, Chevron, Shell, ConocoPhillips). While this would end some of the oil subsidies, it would unfortunately exclude a number of huge companies such as Valero, Koch Industries {ahem...}, Occidental, Anadarko, Amerada Hess, Marathon, Murphy Oil and a number of more diversified energy companies that also produce large quantities of the nation’s oil and gas. In the fall of 2011, there was some hope that fossil fuel subsidy reduction could be included in the Super Committee’s proposal to Congress for $1.5 trillion in deficit-reduction measures over the next ten years. There was support in Congress for this: In an October letter to the Super Committee, 36 House Democrats urged the committee to end subsidies to the fossil fuel industry that would save up to $122 billion over the next ten years. But in the end, it proved to be an uphill battle to get the Super Committee to take a stand on fossil fuel subsidies – and perhaps that’s not so surprising, given the influence of fossil fuel industry money on the Super Committee. Eight Super Committee members received over $300,000 in contributions from the fossil fuel industry since 1999: Senators Baucus (D-MT), Kyl (R-AZ), Portman (R-OH), and Toomey (R-PA), and Representatives Camp (R-MI), Clyburn (D-SC), Hensarling (R-TX), and Upton (R-MI) {note all the Rs}. Calls for subsidy removal tend to be answered by the oil industry and their allies with dire predictions of falling domestic production, loss of jobs, and rising gas prices. But the reality is that removing fossil fuel subsidies (which the industry deceptively calls new taxes) will have little to no impact on domestic production, jobs, or prices at the pump. According to the Treasury Department, removing the domestic subsidies as proposed in the President’s budget would reduce U.S. oil production less than one half of one percent, and will increase exploration and production costs less than two percent. Considering the price that the domestic industry receives for crude has more than doubled over the past several years, the industry can afford that – without laying anyone off or jacking up the price at the pump. The global oil market, not the domestic industry, determines gas prices. Treasury estimates that subsidy removal would cause a loss of less than one tenth of one percent in global oil supply, and thus would have no impact on global or U.S. prices.Same In case you're interested, this shows you how subsidies break down for energy, that those for Big Oil VASTLY outweigh those for any other source of fuel: Note that just a handful of tax breaks make up the largest portion of these subsidies, with the most significant of these, Foreign Tax Credits, supporting the oversease production of oil. Anyone want to talk about "dependence on foreign oil"? It's not about lessening that (which is a misnomer anyway) as much as it is about lessening the corporate welfare WE PAY to use "foreign oil".
Quote:$2.4 Billion: subsidies to the Big Five producers debated and defeated in the Senate in 2011 and 2012 The Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act, sponsored by Senator Menendez (D-NJ) was debated and defeated by the Senate for two years running, and would have eliminated $2.4 billion in annual tax deductions for the five major oil companies: BP, Exxon, Chevron, Shell and ConocoPhillips. Although the move would have been an initial step, it’s just the tip of the iceberg. So called “independent” oil companies are hardly small businesses. Major integrated oil companies also include Occidental, Amerada Hess, Marathon, Murphy Oil and dozens of others. Together, these companies produced 53.5 percent of U.S. oil in 2009. $4 Billion: Subsidy cuts President Obama proposed in the 2013 budget. President Obama has proposed cutting fossil fuel subsidies every year he’s been in office. The projections for savings have varied slightly each year but always hover around $4 billion annually. Congress has never even proposed voting on all of them. $10 billion. Low end credible comprehensive estimates. Several recent independent estimates of U.S. fossil fuel subsidies all arrive at roughly this number, although they consider slightly different things. Recent studies include those conducted by Management Information Services, Environmental Law Institute, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development – OECD. (The OECD numbers compiled and analyzed here.) $52 billion. Earth Track, an NGO that specializes in subsidy valuation, estimates that annual oil, gas and coal subsidies total about $52 billion annually. Highest credible comprehensive estimate. Includes some costs associated with defending pipelines and shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf, as well as a portion of defense spending. It should be noted that while the estimate of $53 billion in fossil fuel subsidies annually does include some of the cost of U.S. military “defense” of the Persian Gulf region, it does not specifically incorporate any increase in defense spending relating to Iraq, or any quantification of the environmental externalities associated with oil. And none of the amounts cited include fossil fuel subsidies in the form of international aid.Same
Quote:Health. A 2009 report by the National Academy of Sciences claims that burning fossil fuels results in about $120 billion per year in health-related costs. Infrastructure spending. The US is already committed to spending at least $1.6 trillion additional dollars per year in maintenance, new vehicles and fuel. We built our power transmission lines on the assumption of large, remote power plants. We build our houses and industries on the assumption of cheap electricity; those practices, codes and regulations are still embedded in our construction and manufacturing sectors. We built our power transmission lines on the assumption of large, remote power plants. Costs from climate change. The costs of accelerating climate change are staggering, and are certainly greater than the costs of ending our dependence on fossil fuels. Whatever the numbers, it seems ludicrous that any of our tax dollars would support such established and profitable industries. These energy subsidies are completely out of step with a nation that now broadly accepts the need to end our collective oil addiction and fight global warming.Same
Quote:One of the most obvious benefits of ending fossil fuel subsidies is increasing the availability of public money. The money saved from fossil fuel subsidies could be used to promote clean energy and energy efficiency alternatives, which would be in line with public opinion. A 2010 poll by Stanford University found public support for government action to increase clean energy and energy efficiency. The poll found that 84 percent are in favor of giving companies tax breaks to produce more electricity from water, wind, and solar power; 81 percent want more fuel efficient cars that use less gasoline; 80 percent want more appliances that use less electricity; and 80 percent want more home and office buildings that require less energy to heat and cool.
Quote:For the last several years, President Obama has proposed eliminating $4 billion in oil and gas subsidies from the U.S. budget. While these are not all the subsidies that this mature and very profitable industry enjoys, they are some of the most obvious. But Congress hasn’t yet approved President Obama’s budget cuts. Fossil fuel subsidies have come up in Congress – and rightly so! – in discussions of ways to cut government expenditures in order to balance the budget. In the spring of 2011, there was a push by some legislators to remove subsidies that target only the major oil companies – in particular, the “Big Five” (BP, Exxon, Chevron, Shell, ConocoPhillips). While this would end some of the oil subsidies, it would unfortunately exclude a number of huge companies such as Valero, Koch Industries {ahem...}, Occidental, Anadarko, Amerada Hess, Marathon, Murphy Oil and a number of more diversified energy companies that also produce large quantities of the nation’s oil and gas. In the fall of 2011, there was some hope that fossil fuel subsidy reduction could be included in the Super Committee’s proposal to Congress for $1.5 trillion in deficit-reduction measures over the next ten years. There was support in Congress for this: In an October letter to the Super Committee, 36 House Democrats urged the committee to end subsidies to the fossil fuel industry that would save up to $122 billion over the next ten years. But in the end, it proved to be an uphill battle to get the Super Committee to take a stand on fossil fuel subsidies – and perhaps that’s not so surprising, given the influence of fossil fuel industry money on the Super Committee. Eight Super Committee members received over $300,000 in contributions from the fossil fuel industry since 1999: Senators Baucus (D-MT), Kyl (R-AZ), Portman (R-OH), and Toomey (R-PA), and Representatives Camp (R-MI), Clyburn (D-SC), Hensarling (R-TX), and Upton (R-MI) {note all the Rs}. Calls for subsidy removal tend to be answered by the oil industry and their allies with dire predictions of falling domestic production, loss of jobs, and rising gas prices. But the reality is that removing fossil fuel subsidies (which the industry deceptively calls new taxes) will have little to no impact on domestic production, jobs, or prices at the pump. According to the Treasury Department, removing the domestic subsidies as proposed in the President’s budget would reduce U.S. oil production less than one half of one percent, and will increase exploration and production costs less than two percent. Considering the price that the domestic industry receives for crude has more than doubled over the past several years, the industry can afford that – without laying anyone off or jacking up the price at the pump. The global oil market, not the domestic industry, determines gas prices. Treasury estimates that subsidy removal would cause a loss of less than one tenth of one percent in global oil supply, and thus would have no impact on global or U.S. prices.Same
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL