Subsidies to dirtiest energy - NRDC report

[Karlin]

Every major oil company is pursuing these unconventional oil technologies. High oil prices are making such sources more cost competitive, but vast new spending is still required to develop them. Industry and its supporters are increasingly asking taxpayers to foot the bill.

....lawmakers are facing growing pressure to give huge new subsidies and other incentives to companies involved liquid coal, oil shale and tar sands.

link:
http://tinyurl.com/2ow7bq


There is plenty of money lying around. The defense budgets are burning it with no real results other than death and destruction.

Governments are being lobbied for these funds to start up or enhance production of the most polluting fossil fuels of all - liquid coal, oil shale, and tar sands.

I believe the public of Canada and the USA would prefer that that money be spent on global warming solutions - new energy technologies and helping corporations reduce carbon emissions. There is MORE than enough government money to do that, and still maintain some military forces, but more in line with what is actually needed [the war on terror being mostly a farce [where is the threat, or the terrorist attacks on USA, 6 yrs after 9/11?].


Another report:
This June 2007 report explores the full scale of the damage done by attempts to extract oil from liquid coal, oil shale, and tar sands; examines the risks for investors of gambling on these dirty fuel sources; and lays out solutions for guiding us toward a cleaner fuel future.
link:
http://tinyurl.com/3atrxy

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

It is time to end subsidies for oil companies. How can they get all this money from taxpayers? Absurd.

 

[Tonington]

Subsidies, tax breaks and things which aren't even included in standard calculations for subsidies like rate guarantees and nuclear liability guarantees. The list is long. Check out the new report from the Government Accountability Office. They admit to leaving off some funds in the report, but acknowledge their existence at least.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08102.pdf

There's a dilemma as far as policy makers are concerned. To fight global warming, it will no doubt cost money. Coal and Nuclear are the big winners in the subsidy game. Coal is plentiful in America, the dilemma is, either you can have clean coal, or you can have cheap coal, but you can't have both.

 

[warrior_won]

So stay the way you are and keep your head down to the same old ground. Just paint your picture boy until you find a closed circle's better than an open line.

 

[Tonington]

What exactly was that shot at? Clarity can work wonders on the net.

 

[YoungJoonKim]

One source I read indicated that at least $2.5 trillion dollars will be required to meet the growing demands of fossil fuel.
Holy cow, imagine $2.5 trillion ..I mean..at least half of that spent on alternative energy resource.
I understand that it will have less energy dense and hence, will not meet the demand.
However, it will hopefully prolong the inevitable...which is the peak oil.
p.s. Saudi reached its peak and have lost 10% of its production so far..from the highest point.
...are we screwed?

 

[iARTthere4iam]

If the oil is economical to get then it should be the oil companies that invest in it's extraction. Corporate welfare is not required. There are many wind farms popping up around my neck of the woods and I am constantly frustrated by the public outcry against this clean efficient energy source.

 

[Tonington]

Part of the problem is most efforts are concentrated on meeting current consumption demands with alternative sources. Instead, more effort needs to be placed on deploying efficient technology which we do have. All that billions of dollars spent on Coal and Nuclear has done what? The energy mix today looks exactly like it did 40 years ago. There were ebbs and flows in the mixture, like natural gas and nuclear, but they essentially are back where they were now.

Instead, controlled consumption, ie. more efficient technologies which reduce energy needed. Efficiency has worked with household appliances and cars. The end result for consumers is less money, and less subsidies for dirty energy, which remains evolutionarily stale.

Case in point is California. If the rest of the devloped world followed a similar approach, that dirty word Kyoto wouldn't be so dirty, in fact it would be laughable to suggest such a thing.

Also know that lessons have been cataloged. Just because Europe gave away permits to big emitters doesn't mean that that's the best way. We know it's actually worse for end users/consumers. Instead, you auction off all permits, and the revenue generated helps fund other supplementary programs.

This reactionary, piecemeal style of picking specific energies like biofuels, or geo-sequestration is a lesson in faulty policy. You need a holistic approach. Again, look at California. The differences now between State leadership versus Federal leadership is daunting.

 

[iARTthere4iam]

We are currently in the process of implementing these technologies. Vehicle efficiency is growing by leaps and bounds, those wonderful mercury-filled compact flourescent lights are improving the efficiency over the century-old incandescent ones (even better, LED technology is very efficient and long lasting), wind farms are popping up all over (this would be moving along faster if people weren't so dead-set against turbines in their lives) and a wide variety of "clean" technologies are being developed. At least two electric car companies in Canada are waiting on Transport Canada to allow them on the roads. If we can get people to use electric cars for short around-town driving and plug them in at home we can use some of these "clean" energy options.

I guess my point is that the solutions are really piecemeal. As demand for these technologies are developed and implemented the shape of our future energy generation and use is emerging.