Posted on 11/09/2010 3:07:07 PM PST by larry hagedon
Folks, there has been much misinformation published about energy subsidies. In fact gasoline is subsidized at around 3 times the rate of ethanol, but accurate information is hard to find.
Most gasoline subsidies are permanent while ethanol subsidies have to be renewed annually. This is why ethanol subsidies gets all the ink while much larger gasoline subsidies are ignored
Here is a PDF, published this year, that tells it like it is.
I fully agree with all your points.
Understand that the smoke screen was first applied by congress in hiding petroleum subsidies from our view, buried in huge bills that no one reads. Not even the Government Accounting Office can give us a very clear answer to how many subsidies there are.
My purpose in posting this was to establish that Petroleum has many subsidies, quite contrary to the understanding of many people.
Just who be the International Energy Association ?
Beats me.
They seem to have the facts well documented.
Does the International Energy Association have any axes to grind?
I am sure they do, as do all people and organizations that post on line.
The problem has been that the oil subsidies have not been well reported, whereas ethanol subsidies are headline news. People get excited about news items, not situations they know nothing about.
In order to have a fair debate over ethanol subsidies, we need to also debate oil subsidies.
Nope, not too many people will read that PDF file cover to cover. Yep, I had a good reason for not posting the file.
But I did get comments.
The important thing here is to understand that both oil and ethanol are subsidized. We can debate degree of subsidy, and that is fine, but we must understand that ethanol is not alone in being subsidized. If anyone wants to damn ethanol for subsidies, at least be fair about it and damn gasoline too.
A level playing field is what we all need.
Understanding that Ethanol is not the only form of motor fuel subsidized is a step in that direction.
The trillions with a T spent on keeping that craphole middle east safe for tankers is a ridiculous subsidy i think.
I certainly agree with you on that one.
Well you can sure believe the leftists on this.
I would suggest you do some deep research on biotechnology, you have much to learn.
It looks like you might still be in denial about the billions of tax dollars spent on oil subsidies. You need to get over that.
I dont know much about the leftists or what they believe, but I sure know that American industry is using American raw materials and American workers to profitably produce hundreds of Made in America biotech products, including ethanol.
This is an American Industry that every Conservative should wholeheartedly support.
First off: Your point is not made, because the degree you call a quibble is not a quibble, it’s a huge gulf, with the least bang for the buck in “subsidies” for renewables and biofuels and the biggest bang for the buck for fossil fuels.
Secondly: As I said in my comments, one of the biggest errors of the report is that it calls “tax credits” (the biggest form of subsidy for “fossil fuels”) - money left in the private sector - as the same and having the same economic weight as “subsidy” as money confiscated out of the private sector through taxation, shuffled through the politicians and redirected in the economy by government fiat (the biggest form of subsidy for renewables and biofuels). They are NOT equal when it comes to economic performance. Wealth/capital/income redistribution by government fiat is never as efficient in economic terms (making the most of an investment) as leaving wealth/capital/income in the private sector in the first place.
If “renewables” and “biofuels” were the new “Model T” of energy, or the “PC revolution” of energy, then like Henry Ford and Bill Gates no program of government directed investment in them would be needed to bring them and their revolution in energy to market. The fact is they are much more about politics than they are about more efficient energy.
Energy has had its revolution; its called nuclear energy, and its been held up by one thing - politics. End that blockade and the revolution in energy begun decades ago will be resurrected; with private capital.
Read their website.
Nice post!
“American industry is using American raw materials and American workers to profitably produce ... ethanol.”
-
No, not profitable by a long shot, else it would need no subsidy.
Ditto
I was just pointing out that what some would call an oilpatch subsidy is actually a roundabout State subsidy. More or less: “What the Depletion Allowance giveth, Oklahoma’s Gross Production Tax taketh away.”
The way the math works out; you don’t pay about 5% (or so) of your gross to the Feds (about 1/3 of the 15% Depletion allowance), but the State’s 7% Gross Producion Tax pretty much wipes that out anyway. Net result = the State ends up with your “subsidy” (or most of it).
I didn’t read the “Study”, but I doubt if they bothered to look at the claw-back at the state level. LOL ... They never do.
LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.