This is where it goes wrong. This is putting a moral value to something. Doesn't work without a common ethos and value system.
NFR "The Hypocrite" TGR film about advocacy/fossil fuels/Outdoor State
- Thread starter adamcu280
- Start date
Non-fishing related
- Status
Yes and no. Why are we still subsidizing oil then? And taxpayers are not asked about a subsidy. Their elected representatives who are embedded in the system of lobbyists and political to industry pipeline hear these types of things. And much like North of Falcon the real work is done privately behind closed doors. Not once have I been asked or informed about what of my labours go to fund Exxon to explore skull island for oil.
Subsidies are meant to get an emerging industry off the ground. Much like welfare a stop gap to give someone a start or keep them afloat for tough times not be a way of life or doing business. What I see is a welfare system for giant industries with record profit and still the little guy is gouged at the pump. Yeah it's all boring but the fun part and finer things aren't happening where you and I can see it or even have a say in it.
Subsidies come in many shapes and sizes. They aren't always funded by taxes. Many people jump to conclusions when they hear the word "subsidized." One example is offshore and public land oil development. The government owns a lot of land. If an oil company wants to drill, they can apply for a permit and if it's approved, they can drill for a pretty small fee and they have to share some of the profits with the government in the form of royalties. Your tax dollars weren't spent to allow this, but the oil company was definitely receiving a subsidy because they didn't have to purchase the land they drilled on. There are many more examples. It can be very similar for green energy - like offshore wind farms or solar installations on publicly owned land.
Fourbtgait
Steelhead
Every grant, subsidy, or land owned by a government entity is funded by taxpayer dollars. Just cause the dots connect with more than a straight line doesn't mean it isn't so.
I’ll say this: once Dustin and I started conversing via less charged, more thorough, and more polite private messages we discovered that our opinions are much closer than either of us may have thought based on our conversations on the board.
The tone in our heads when we write in the quick one liners here may not be the tone the reader receives.
Last edited:
This is why I don't text my wife back half the time. I think she's yelling at me. Turns out she is, but at least in person I'm sure of it.
But there is truth to it.
If we'd all sit face to face, conversations would be much more productive. I think 85% of America is 90% on the same page. We just highlight what we aren't.
It's still up to debate if global warming or text message formats will be the end of the world. I think a debate could be made for the latter also lol.
Matt,
If you bothered to read the previous post I merely mentioned that alternative fuels have subsidies in response to the previous poster mentioning oil subsidies. The main intent with my posts is the scale of production, it’s impossible to load up every vessel, airplane with massive amounts of fuel derived from various backgrounds. Don’t be so quick to paint me with a broad brush that I am against green energy sources. I’m against the holier-than-though bullshit. Circling to the Guardian write up, yeah I missed the date but they tend to be a liberal source and accurate. I’m sure that there are some creative and legitimate carbon dealings, but where there’s crisis there is money to be made.
Rob Allen
Life of the Party
The entirety of the green energy sector is far more than just subsidized. There is no commercial value to wind and solar energy.
It's so unprofitable that the companies who own the projects refuse to fix failed windmills unless they are forced to. Drive through the OK panhandle tons of broken windmills.
Worst of all the subsidies however is ethanol. Engine destroying garbage fuel..
Wind and solar sources generated a combined 252 terawatt-hours through the first five months of 2023, compared with coal output of 249 TWh, EIA data shows. Hydro generated an additional 117 TWh through May.
www.scientificamerican.com
In a First, Wind and Solar Generated More Power Than Coal in U.S.
Wind and solar produced more U.S. power than coal during the first five months of this year, as several coal plants closed and gas prices dropped
I agree on ethanol. It wrecks carbs, attracts water, and doesn't store stable. What is the point? I will not put it in anything with a carb. I assume with bright ideas like this out of government anything is possible no matter how bad an idea.
wrong...In 2023, wind represents 29% of Texas ( the only state which does not participate in the national electric grid) energy generation, second only to natural gas. At last count they had 15,300 wind turbines, the most of any state, surpassing nuke and coal, and are continually building more.
As to subsidized costs of oil. The US spends 81 billion each to year to protect it's oil interests around the world, not counting the loss of US soldiers. 7000 Americans killed fighting the Sand Wars over the past two decades, our war machine in place consuming 25 millions barrels of oil each year doing so... the scumbags selling us the oil for a profit while using our boys to protect their interests which their own people won't.
Anyone really think if it wasn't for oil we'd give a flying F about the middle east?
Outside of sugarcane, ethanol return yields are an absolute joke. Complete waste of a food source and land use. Which brings me to another issue, energy density, ethanol really affects your range, as do other “sustainable” fuels, airplanes are a prime example. A little issue the diehards don’t want to address. Like I said, I’m not against them, just I’m realistic and in the best case it will be a fuel blend to keep performance within spec and maintenance intervals. I’ll tell you what frustrates me from an environmental point of view, is the natural gas burn off from oil wells, seams like it is a perfect viable form of energy being wasted.
The spice must flow.
We have our own reserves. We even export. Drilling new isn't politically possible so we go green by shipping that stuff half way around the world in magic ships that burn unicorn farts.
Like I said, the spice must flow.
I think energy independence is critical no matter what form it comes in. Geopolitical strife and threat is vastly mitigated with energy independence.
Just because you believe that, doesn't make it so. The government gets revenue from many things that aren't taxpayer dollars. You should read up on it.
x2...wind, package nuke, solar, hydro, tidal, domestic natural gas, and domestic oil from leased US taxpayer land must be used for domestic supply only.
Then what happens in the Sandlot not our problem..let them fight their own tribal wars.
Holy shit! Billy was right! We solved it! Good job everyone!
SSPey
loco alto!
Little history: Corn ethanol was never intended as an end-game for biofuels, it was just a convenient starter crop, proof of concept. Corn was chosen because the crop breeding was mature, farmers could grow it, production / fermentation were scalable, and it was politically palatable. But corn was never the goal, it’s energetic inefficiency was known since Pimentel’s work in the 1970s. DOE knew this and stated upfront a desire to start with corn (for convenience) and then transition to more efficient feedstocks (like switchgrass, which produces far more ethanol than corn per acre, and also grows well on marginal land). Yet here we are. Change is hard, even in “renewable” energy.
Yeah, the taxpayer money barely covers the interest on the money the government borrows/prints.
- Status
