Avian carnage . .

[Rage Against the McKee]

oh boy

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/06/the_gulf_oil_spill_may_have_killed_up_to_800000_birds/

It probably killed countless fish and shrimps, too.

[Emo EMAW]

That's why we need that Keystone XL babaaaay!

[CNS]

oh boy

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/06/the_gulf_oil_spill_may_have_killed_up_to_800000_birds/

It probably killed countless fish and shrimps, too.

It is still causing big problems for fishermen.  Huge.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

That's why we need that Keystone XL babaaaay!

The safest and most environmentally clean way to transport oil. Doesn't make sense that anybody would be anti Keystone.

[Ghost of Stan Parrish]

Subsidizing any one of them and funneling billions of dollars to make rich people richer isn't a solution.

We subsidize fossil fuels, as well. Those subsidies keep energy costs low so poor people can afford heat in the winter, etc.

Fossil fuels make more energy/$.  Denmark can't even make wind work at $.40/kw*hr, and here we pay a quarter of that.

Well I can't figure out if you're for subsidies or not.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Subsidizing any one of them and funneling billions of dollars to make rich people richer isn't a solution.

We subsidize fossil fuels, as well. Those subsidies keep energy costs low so poor people can afford heat in the winter, etc.

Fossil fuels make more energy/$.  Denmark can't even make wind work at $.40/kw*hr, and here we pay a quarter of that.

Well I can't figure out if you're for subsidies or not.

While the federal government oil subsidies are about $4 billion to $10 billion a year, the gasoline taxes collected by local, state and federal governments are about $60 billion.

[michigancat]

I know it hasn't been brought up, but left-leaning conservation groups oppose wind farms and solar farms all the time because of wildlife impact.

[EMAWican]

IIRC, oil subsidies account for around a nickel per bbl of oil produced.  If they received the same amount of subsidies percentage-based as wind farms do, they would get around a Grant ($50) per bbl. 

[michigancat]

I think green technology should be subsidized more than oil.

[Spracne]

I think green technology should be subsidized more than oil.

Once green technology comes close to or surpasses oil in terms of efficiency, I'm all for this idea. 

[michigancat]

I think green technology should be subsidized more than oil.

Once green technology comes close to or surpasses oil in terms of efficiency, I'm all for this idea. 

I think once it comes close or surpasses, that's when the subsidies should stop, (or at least be reduced).

[EMAWican]

I think the big factor is time.  Oil production and other fossil fuels were probably subsidized just as much as wind in their initial timeframe.  I just wish that money went more towards R&D then actually building them, transmission lines, etc.

[Spracne]

I think green technology should be subsidized more than oil.

Once green technology comes close to or surpasses oil in terms of efficiency, I'm all for this idea. 

I think once it comes close or surpasses, that's when the subsidies should stop, (or at least be reduced).

As a country we have policies that make it relatively cheap to own/drive a car.  We subsidize fossil fuels in all sorts of indirect ways, even though it is the most efficient energy source we have.  Until the technology catches up, heavily subsidizing green energy is basically throwing good money after bad.  I'm all for R&D, though, and not just in green energy. 

[michigancat]

so what you're saying is that we should spend more subsidies on oil production and R&D because it's the most efficient.

[Emo EMAW]

I know it hasn't been brought up, but left-leaning conservation groups oppose wind farms and solar farms all the time because of wildlife impact.

 

Also, oil and green technology are not mutually exclusive.

[Spracne]

so what you're saying is that we should spend more subsidies on oil production and R&D because it's the most efficient.

I'm not an economist.  I just think we (the government) shouldn't be too heavy handed with green subsidies to the point where they are artificially equal to or cheaper than fossil fuels for consumers. Even worse would be if we did this suddenly and drastically.  First, that's a huge chunk of change that would come from our taxes (somehow).  Secondly, we would see people ditching fossil fuel for cheaper, green alternatives, which sounds like a good thing until you realize all of the public programs that are funded through taxing energy consumption.  Just the other week Obama was discussing how we needed to raise the gas tax because we don't have enough money to build/maintain roads because people are now driving (gasp) cars that are too efficient.  Same concept if we massively subsidize green energy and make it cheaper than fossil fuels.  Not only are we paying for those subsidies, but there would be a double whammy of having to pay more/new taxes to make up for revenue not collected from fossil fuels.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Right now, it makes the most sense to subsidize fossil fuel engine design to squeeze the most mileage or generating power out of a gallon of gas. Also, battery technology.

[CNS]

I think the big factor is time.  Oil production and other fossil fuels were probably subsidized just as much as wind in their initial timeframe.  I just wish that money went more towards R&D then actually building them, transmission lines, etc.

I would also prefer the money go into R&D.  That said, if once R&D produced something that needed transmission lines, I think the implementation of that should be subsidized as well.  If the product/process itself isn't efficient enough, once up and running, to compete with O&G, then that shouldn't get the subsidy.

[Rage Against the McKee]

so what you're saying is that we should spend more subsidies on oil production and R&D because it's the most efficient.

I'm not an economist.  I just think we (the government) shouldn't be too heavy handed with green subsidies to the point where they are artificially equal to or cheaper than fossil fuels for consumers. Even worse would be if we did this suddenly and drastically.  First, that's a huge chunk of change that would come from our taxes (somehow).  Secondly, we would see people ditching fossil fuel for cheaper, green alternatives, which sounds like a good thing until you realize all of the public programs that are funded through taxing energy consumption.  Just the other week Obama was discussing how we needed to raise the gas tax because we don't have enough money to build/maintain roads because people are now driving (gasp) cars that are too efficient.  Same concept if we massively subsidize green energy and make it cheaper than fossil fuels.  Not only are we paying for those subsidies, but there would be a double whammy of having to pay more/new taxes to make up for revenue not collected from fossil fuels.

In the near future, the gas tax is going to be zero and everyone will be taxed based upon mileage. That is a much more fair and reasonable than the gas tax and I'm all for it.

[CNS]

Right now, it makes the most sense to subsidize fossil fuel engine design to squeeze the most mileage or generating power out of a gallon of gas. Also, battery technology.

Yeah, battery tech is where a bunch of money should be going.  It could change the whole game.

[Emo EMAW]

I think the big factor is time.  Oil production and other fossil fuels were probably subsidized just as much as wind in their initial timeframe.  I just wish that money went more towards R&D then actually building them, transmission lines, etc.

I would also prefer the money go into R&D.  That said, if once R&D produced something that needed transmission lines, I think the implementation of that should be subsidized as well.  If the product/process itself isn't efficient enough, once up and running, to compete with O&G, then that shouldn't get the subsidy.

Like ethanol.

[CNS]

so what you're saying is that we should spend more subsidies on oil production and R&D because it's the most efficient.

I'm not an economist.  I just think we (the government) shouldn't be too heavy handed with green subsidies to the point where they are artificially equal to or cheaper than fossil fuels for consumers. Even worse would be if we did this suddenly and drastically.  First, that's a huge chunk of change that would come from our taxes (somehow).  Secondly, we would see people ditching fossil fuel for cheaper, green alternatives, which sounds like a good thing until you realize all of the public programs that are funded through taxing energy consumption.  Just the other week Obama was discussing how we needed to raise the gas tax because we don't have enough money to build/maintain roads because people are now driving (gasp) cars that are too efficient.  Same concept if we massively subsidize green energy and make it cheaper than fossil fuels.  Not only are we paying for those subsidies, but there would be a double whammy of having to pay more/new taxes to make up for revenue not collected from fossil fuels.

In the near future, the gas tax is going to be zero and everyone will be taxed based upon mileage. That is a much more fair and reasonable than the gas tax and I'm all for it.

This would cripple business, small and big.  Not going to happen.

[Rage Against the McKee]

so what you're saying is that we should spend more subsidies on oil production and R&D because it's the most efficient.

I'm not an economist.  I just think we (the government) shouldn't be too heavy handed with green subsidies to the point where they are artificially equal to or cheaper than fossil fuels for consumers. Even worse would be if we did this suddenly and drastically.  First, that's a huge chunk of change that would come from our taxes (somehow).  Secondly, we would see people ditching fossil fuel for cheaper, green alternatives, which sounds like a good thing until you realize all of the public programs that are funded through taxing energy consumption.  Just the other week Obama was discussing how we needed to raise the gas tax because we don't have enough money to build/maintain roads because people are now driving (gasp) cars that are too efficient.  Same concept if we massively subsidize green energy and make it cheaper than fossil fuels.  Not only are we paying for those subsidies, but there would be a double whammy of having to pay more/new taxes to make up for revenue not collected from fossil fuels.

In the near future, the gas tax is going to be zero and everyone will be taxed based upon mileage. That is a much more fair and reasonable than the gas tax and I'm all for it.

This would cripple business, small and big.  Not going to happen.

How so?

[Emo EMAW]

It should be some formula of mileage*GVW.

[CNS]

so what you're saying is that we should spend more subsidies on oil production and R&D because it's the most efficient.

I'm not an economist.  I just think we (the government) shouldn't be too heavy handed with green subsidies to the point where they are artificially equal to or cheaper than fossil fuels for consumers. Even worse would be if we did this suddenly and drastically.  First, that's a huge chunk of change that would come from our taxes (somehow).  Secondly, we would see people ditching fossil fuel for cheaper, green alternatives, which sounds like a good thing until you realize all of the public programs that are funded through taxing energy consumption.  Just the other week Obama was discussing how we needed to raise the gas tax because we don't have enough money to build/maintain roads because people are now driving (gasp) cars that are too efficient.  Same concept if we massively subsidize green energy and make it cheaper than fossil fuels.  Not only are we paying for those subsidies, but there would be a double whammy of having to pay more/new taxes to make up for revenue not collected from fossil fuels.

In the near future, the gas tax is going to be zero and everyone will be taxed based upon mileage. That is a much more fair and reasonable than the gas tax and I'm all for it.

This would cripple business, small and big.  Not going to happen.

How so?

Adding additional tax to any business will change the price structure of their goods/services and reduce the amt of ppl able to pay for them.