For years, many Conservatives have denied that oil has any subsidy at all.
You quibble about the degree of subsidy and that is fine, but I have succeeded in my goal, which is to point out that oil is subsidized. Ethanol is indeed not alone in receiving subsidies.
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.