DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Fossil Fuel Folly
*****************************************************
#Post#: 28--------------------------------------------------
Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Ob
vious Ones!
By: AGelbert Date: October 10, 2013, 8:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[move]Fossil Fuel Subsidies in the U.S.[/move]
What is a fossil fuel subsidy?
A fossil fuel subsidy is any government action that lowers the
cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received
by energy producers or lowers the price paid by energy
consumers. There are a lot of activities under this simple
definition—tax breaks and giveaways, but also loans at favorable
rates, price controls, purchase requirements and a whole lot of
other things.
Are you looking for information about International Fossil Fuel
Subsidies? Then go here.
Want to take action to end fossil fuel subsidies? Sign this
petition.
How much money does the U.S. government give oil, gas and coal
companies?
In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel
subsidies range from $14 billion to $52 billion annually, while
even efforts to remove small portions of those subsidies have
been defeated in Congress, as shown in the graphic below
HTML http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2012/05/FIN.USCapitolSubsidyGraphicFlyer.pdf
HTML http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
#Post#: 82--------------------------------------------------
The True Cost of Oil
By: AGelbert Date: October 17, 2013, 5:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=84zIj_EdQdM
#Post#: 104--------------------------------------------------
The Cost of Carbon
By: AGelbert Date: October 18, 2013, 4:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kY-ZnpWbJdw
The fossil fuel industry is NOT PAYING IT; [i]WE ARE![/I]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/minzdr.gif
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2mo5pow.gif
[img
width=110]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif[/img]http://www.pic4ever.com/images/swear1.gif
#Post#: 118--------------------------------------------------
Fighting the good fight
By: AGelbert Date: October 20, 2013, 2:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[move]From a thread I participated in ;D to keep the fossil
fuelers from spreading 'inaccuracies'. ;)[/move]
Stan Curlee
No A.G., I deplore inflated dividends also. And did I post yet
on being dead set against nuclear? I am. Here’s the bottom line
with me and I have stated it here more than once. My concern is
a dependable grid that will not harm the percent delivery on
demand and quality of power we get or cause financial pain
beyond what we can afford—vastly higher rates, vastly higher
taxes or government default.
If renewables can do it, fine. But they cannot, I submit, past
about 15% penetration. And everyone is going to have to find
that out the hard way. I’m not sure I’m “mobilizing” against
anything, but this is a hoppy and passion, just because I’m a
techy type on this stuff and love it. . . . Unless you consider
me an army of “one.” A.G., I ask you to dig deep and really
consider how many technical points/challenges I am actually
misrepresenting. (?) Really? And RE phase 3, I don’t think I’m
disguising anything. I think Scheer left out the “honest
engineering challenge” phase. He assumes there are ZERO honest
challenges to this?? Not one? There’s nothing special about me,
but this is my discipline. I run numbers similar to these and
risk assess complex systems all the time for viability when I
have to solve engineering problems. Thomas made a very telling
remark in his great article. Remember? There are simply so many
non-technically trained people in places of power and influence
who simply will not listen to or take advice from those of us
who are technically trained. Their minds are made up.
A. G. Gelbert
Stan,
Here's the main problem I have with your defense of the fossil
fuel energy status quo as if it was something reasonably priced,
economical, viable and sane as opposed to your continuous
insistence on claiming that renewable energy is too costly
and/or unreliable:
Fossil fuel energy was never, and I mean never, cost effective.
In a sane society that doesn't pretend you can add and subtract
whatever factors you wish in order to come up with a profit that
will attract investment capital, you figure in all the costs to
human society.
From the moment John D. Rockefeller started flushing gasoline
down the rivers in Pennsylvania in the late 19th century (it was
a waste product then) after refining crude oil for lubricants
and lamp oil, huge costs were being foisted on society.
Coal is even worse. You pretend all that is water under the
bridge. You pretend all the benefits of modern society are an
acceptable tradeoff.
Well, they aren't. The only premise that is logical and sane
now, with the continued damage that adds insult to injury to the
biosphere we all depend on, is to admit that fossil fuels were
never a viable, cost effective, sustainable source of energy for
mankind and press on to renewable energy simply because there is
no other alternative.
Argue this isn't real and those who defend fossil fuel energy
are not in la la land in regard to the actual cost of these
poisons if you dare.
The subsidies the fossil-fuel (and nuclear) industry receive —
and have received for many years — make their product
“affordable.” Those subsidies take many forms, but the most
significant are their “externalities.” Externalities are real
costs, but they are foisted off on the community instead of
being paid by the companies that caused them.[18]
Paul Epstein, director of Harvard Medical School Center for
Health and the Global Environment, has examined the health and
environmental impacts of coal, including: mining,
transportation, combustion in power plants and the impact of
coal’s waste stream. He found that the "life cycle effects of
coal and its waste cost the American public $333 billion to over
$500 billion dollars annually". These are costs the coal
industry is not paying and which fall to the community in
general. Eliminating that subsidy would dramatically increase
the price of coal-fired electricity.[18]
IEA position on subsidies
According to IEA (2011) energy subsidies artificially lower the
price of energy paid by consumers, raise the price received by
producers or lower the cost of production. ,"Fossil fuels
subsidies costs generally outweigh the benefits.
Subsidies to renewables and low-carbon energy technologies can
bring long-term economic and environmental benefits".[19] In
November 2011, an IEA report entitled Deploying Renewables 2011
said "subsidies in green energy technologies that were not yet
competitive are justified in order to give an incentive to
investing into technologies with clear environmental and energy
security benefits".
The IEA's report disagreed with claims that renewable energy
technologies are only viable through costly subsidies and not
able to produce energy reliably to meet demand. "A portfolio of
renewable energy technologies is becoming cost-competitive in an
increasingly broad range of circumstances, in some cases
providing investment opportunities without the need for specific
economic support," the IEA said, and added that "cost reductions
in critical technologies, such as wind and solar, are set to
continue."[20]
Fossil-fuel consumption subsidies were $409 billion in 2010, oil
products claim half of it. Renewable-energy subsidies were $66
billion in 2010 and will reach according to IEA $250 billion by
2035. Renewable energy is subsidized in order to compete in the
market, increase their volume and develop the technology so that
the subsidies become unnecessary with the development.
Eliminating fossil-fuel subsidies could bring economic and
environmental benefits. Phasing out fossil-fuel subsidies by
2020 would cut primary energy demand 5%. Since the start of
2010, at least 15 countries have taken steps to phase out
fossil-fuel subsidies.
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies
I say they should take the subsidy money presently assigned to
fossil fuels and transfer all of it to renewable energy
subsidies.
Fossil fuel was never a viable energy option for mankind. We
cannot afford to burn fossil fuels, period.
Somehow, I don't think, you, Stan, would agree to the shutting
off of all fossil fuel subsides and giving that money to
renewable energy for at least as long as fossil fuels had it
(about 100 years!) .
The rest of that thread and the article it was based on here
HTML http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/08/norway-approves-3-billion-for-wind-power-plants-to-triple-capacity#comment-127376
#Post#: 144--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies in the U.S.
By: AGelbert Date: October 22, 2013, 10:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=za4r5uWj4AY&feature=player_embedded<br
/>
#Post#: 193--------------------------------------------------
The REAL "real world"
By: AGelbert Date: October 29, 2013, 2:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[move]Feast your eyes on this EXCELLENT comment that summarizes
what pro-fossil fuelers REFUSE to see ;) about TRUE energy
costs versus pricing.[/move]
Gerry Wootton
October 29, 2013
The point about energy independence may not apply (yet) to
countries with lots of coal and gas, or at least not in an
obvious way. For countries that rely to any extent on imported
energy this is more expensive than face value as it continuously
drains the domestic money supply: while energy to some extent is
converted into value, a large part of it is simply lost even in
relatively efficient systems so the balance of trade is always
negative.
However, Germany does have a fair bit of coal; the thing they
have realized is that coal because of its extreme externalities
places a heavy distributed burden on the economy even if its
point load seems small. From this perspective, dependence on
non-renewable energy, even if domestic, is not energy
independence [I] as this energy use places a burden on the
economy while scarcity alone determines pricing. [/I]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/290.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/245.gif
One important aspect mentioned in the article is that
distributed generation attracts private capital in a way that
the centralized model does not and also frees up competition
in the market.
A market does not even need a great deal of free competition to
make it become competitive. This is certainly one reason that
for profit utilities must resist: what is good for the consumer
is not good for the shareholder :emthup:; further, enterprises
that have a history of monopolistic control are often poorly
equipped ;) to work in a truly competitive way. >:(
In my experience, another value of distributed generation, not
mentioned in the article, is that it makes consumers more aware
of consumption and motivates restraint on consumption and desire
for efficiency.
In off-grid applications there is always a highly visible
tension between the cost of generation and storage versus the
cost of high efficiency appliances. American utilities
unwittingly are playing chicken with that issue by limiting
roof-top capacity to an approximation of average customer
demand.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-anime-047.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif
The Official Explanation for the German Energy Transition
HTML http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2013/10/the-official-explanation-for-the-german-energy-transition
Short List of willfully blind (but not batty ;) ) bats:
Nicole Foss
Gail Tverberg
Tyler Durden
Charles Hall
CNN
CNBC, etc. >:(
#Post#: 199--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies in the U.S.
By: AGelbert Date: October 29, 2013, 8:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The way it USED TO BE was THIS:
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://paradigm-shift-21st-century.nl/plaatjes/world-according-to-americans.jpg[/img]
YES, THERE ARE STILL DIE HARD WAR AND OIL LOVING IDIOTS out
there BUT THE TREND IS NOT THEIR FRIEND!
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://wizbangblue.com/images/2008/02/is_the_iraq_war_causing_the_recession/iraq-oil.jpg[/img]
[move]Americans have become reacquainted with arithmetic: ;D
[/I][/move]
IRAQ War = SUBTRACT $,$$$,$$$,$$$ from the US Economy! ???
>:(
Iraq War Could Have Paid For 100% Renewable Power Grid
by Washingtons Blog - April 14th, 2013, 3:30am
HTML http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/04/iraq-war-could-have-paid-for-100-renewable-power-grid/
HTML http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/04/iraq-war-could-have-paid-for-100-renewable-power-grid/
Iraq War Poll: 10 Years Later, Majority View Invasion As Mistake
[quote]Ten years after the United States invaded Iraq, 53
percent of Americans now view the war as a mistake -- but with a
majority of Republicans still standing behind the effort,
according to a new Gallup survey.[/quote]
HTML http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/iraq-war-poll_n_2899987.html
HTML http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/iraq-war-poll_n_2899987.html
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://www.greenamerica.org/images/pubs/realgreen/articleimages/greenenergy240w.jpg[/img]
RENEWABLE ENERGY = ADD $,$$$,$$$,$$$ TO the US Economy!
[img width=640
height=420]
HTML http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/ce/Bipartisan-RES.jpg[/img]
[move][i]THAT'S RIGHT! >:( WAR IS a Fossil Fuel subsidy! It's
OVER for WARS FOR OIL!
HTML http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000370273/polls_Smiley_Angry_256x256_3451_356175_answer_4_xlarge.png<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/47b20s0.gif
[/move]
#Post#: 209--------------------------------------------------
Pacific Northwest States Link with B.C. on Carbon Pricing Pact
By: AGelbert Date: October 30, 2013, 5:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Northwest States Link with B.C. on Carbon Pricing
Pact
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/maniac.gif
10/31/2013
Clean Edge News
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-106.gif
The leaders of British Columbia, California, Oregon and
Washington have signed the Pacific Coast Action Plan on Climate
and Energy, committing their governments, and a region that
represents the world’s fifth largest economy, to a comprehensive
and far- reaching strategic alignment to combat climate change
and promote clean energy.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif
California Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr., Oregon Governor John
Kitzhaber, Washington Governor Jay Inslee were joined at Cisco
SF by British Columbia’s Premier Christy Clark, who participated
via TelePresence from Victoria. BC Environment Minister
Honourable Mary Polak attended in person.
Through the Action Plan, the leaders agreed that all four
jurisdictions will account for the costs of carbon pollution and
that, where appropriate and feasible, link programs to create
consistency and predictability across the region of 53 million
people. The leaders also committed to adopting and maintaining
low carbon fuel standards in each jurisdiction. In a joint
action plan, the leaders committed to “meaningful coordination
and linkage between states and provinces across North America.”
“This Action Plan represents the best of what Pacific Coast
governments are already doing, and calls on each of us to do
more—together—to create jobs by leading in the clean energy
economy, and to meet our moral obligation to future
generations,” said Governor Inslee. “Each of the governments
here is already taking bold steps on climate change; by joining
forces, we will accomplish even more," Inslee said.
Flanked by supportive business and labor leaders, the governors
and Premier redoubled their commitment to growing the region’s
clean energy economy. The region covered by the Action Plan has
a combined GDP of $2.8 trillion—effectively the world’s fifth
largest economy.
“Oregon supports the Action Plan because we are already seeing
how our commitment to clean energy is changing the face and
fortune of our state, accounting for $5 billion in economic
activity and 58,000 jobs,” said Governor Kitzhaber. “The debate
is over. The scientific community no longer disputes that
climate change is happening and human-caused. But regardless of
where you stand on this question, there’s another good reason to
act: transitioning to a clean economy creates jobs,” Kitzhaber
said.
Under the Action Plan, California and British Columbia will
maintain their existing carbon pricing programs along with their
respective clean fuel standards, while Oregon and Washington
have committed to moving forward on a suite of similar policies.
The leaders further agreed to harmonize their 2050 greenhouse
gas emission targets and develop mid- term targets where needed
to set a path toward long-term reductions.
“California isn't waiting for the rest of the world before it
takes action on climate change,” said Governor Brown. “Today,
California, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia are all
joining together to reduce greenhouse gases,” Brown said.
The leaders pledged to cooperate with governments and
sub-national governments around the world to press for a global
agreement on climate change in 2015.
“Taking action to address climate change in our own capitals is
an important first step,” said Premier Clark. “By supplying
cleaner energy and associated technologies to help others reduce
their emissions while growing the economy and creating jobs at
home, our generation has an opportunity to lead on the world
stage. This agreement signals we are ready to innovate and work
together to achieve a healthy, strong, and secure future,“ Clark
said.
Business leaders hailed the Action Plan as an important
milestone and a boost to efforts for national and international
policy change.
“Our company is seeing significant growth on the Pacific Coast,
and it is encouraging that the trend is concurrent with this
landmark accord,” said Steve Clem, Vice President of Skanska USA
in Portland, Oregon, one of the ten largest construction
companies in the U.S.
“In this time of political grandstanding and gridlock, private
enterprises like ours that are trying to do the right thing are
pleased by the recognition here that it really is possible to
grow the economy, create jobs and still do our part as a region
to fight climate change,” Clem said.
HTML http://www.cleanedge.com/Resources/news/Pacific-Northwest-States-Link-with-B.C.-on-Carbon-Pricing-Pact
#Post#: 308--------------------------------------------------
Alberta, Canada is subsidizing tar sands fossil fuel biosphere t
rashing!
By: AGelbert Date: November 12, 2013, 5:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Alberta, Canada is subsidizing tar sands fossil fuel biosphere
trashing!
How? The massive flooding that has recently hit Albert is caused
by Global Warming. YET, it's the citizens of Alberta that have
to foot the bill for flood damages. This is a SUBSIDY that is
actually LARGER than the obvious tax breaks and depletion
allowance subsidies given to fossil fuel pigs.
Just another TOTALLY IGNORED, IN-YOUR-FACE cost of burning
fossil fuels that fossil fuelers refuse to own up to.
[quote]
Funding and Insurance
Updated: October 1, 2013 8:15 am
Assistance is available to Albertans to help rebuild homes,
businesses and communities. The Alberta Government has allocated
$1 billion :o >:( in immediate support for the first phase
::) of recovery and reconstruction.
Disaster recovery programs (DRP)
Funds to cover uninsurable damage and loss to essential
property. Additionally, if you live in a flood fringe,
information on funding for mitigation
Estimated residential construction cost
The level of funding homeowners can receive through disaster
assistance is based on the cost of construction per square foot
to return the space to a functional, basic level of finish.
Hand-up Plan - Small Business Recovery Programs
Low-interest loans partially guaranteed by the province and
interest rebates for eligible small businesses, agricultural
producers and not-for-profit organizations
Insurance
Contact numbers, insurance information, claims information...
Historical road closures
Record of flood-affected provincial roads and bridges.
[/quote]
HTML http://alberta.ca/recoveryinformation.cfm
The Alberta Fossil Fuel
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif
Tar Sands pigs should
be the ones billed that BILLION DOLLARS!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/cowboypistol.gif
And THAT MASSIVE INVISIBLE SUBSIDY that fossil fuelers enjoy on
the backs of we-the-people is the MAIN REASON the fossil fuel
agents of mendacity and duplicity are going all out to convince
people to DOUBT the ESTABLISHED SCIENTIFIC cause and effect link
between burning fossil fuels and damages from Global Warming
AMPLIFICATION of extreme weather events.
[move][I][font=impact]The Fossil Fuelers DID THE Climate
Trashing CRIME,[COLOR=BROWN] but since they have ALWAYS BEEN
liars
HTML http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif<br
/>and conscience free crooks
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gif,
they
are trying to AVOID [/color] DOING THE TIME or PAYING THE
FINE! Don't let them get away with it![/font][/I][/move]
#Post#: 353--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than th
e Obvious Ones!
By: AGelbert Date: November 15, 2013, 8:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Fossil Fuels Receive $500 Billion A Year In Government Subsidies
Worldwide
Originally published on ClimateProgress
Producers of oil, gas and coal received more than $500 billion
in government subsidies around the world in 2011, with the
richest nations collectively spending more than $70 billion
every year to support fossil fuels.
Those are the findings of a recent report by the Overseas
Development Institute, a think tank based in the United Kingdom.
“If their aim is to avoid dangerous climate change, governments
are shooting themselves in both feet,” the report, headed by ODI
research fellow Shelagh Whitley, said. “They are subsidizing the
very activities that are pushing the world towards dangerous
climate change, and creating barriers to investment in
low-carbon development and subsidy incentives that encourage
investment in carbon-intensive energy.”
While the report acknowledges there is currently no globally
agreed definition of what constitutes a subsidy, it cites the
World Trade Organization’s approach: “a subsidy is any financial
contribution by a government, or agent of a government, that
confers a benefit on its recipient.”
Germany, for example, provided €1.9 billion in financial
assistance to its hard coal sector in 2011, according to the
report. That same year, the U.S. created a $1 billion fuel tax
exemption for farmers and invested $500 million for fossil
energy research and development. The top 11 “rich-country
emitters” — the biggest being Russia, the United States,
Australia, Germany and the United Kingdom — are estimated to
have spent $74 billion on subsidies in 2011.
That total amount outweighs the support provided to developing
countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by seven to
one, the report found.
Fossil fuel subsidies were actually created to benefit the poor.
According to ODI, governments often justify giving tax breaks
and freebies to energy companies in order for those companies to
provide energy access to those who can’t afford it.
Generally, however, that winds up not being the case. Citing a
report by the International Monetary Fund, ODI said only seven
percent of the benefits from fossil fuel subsidies in developing
countries reached the poorest 20 percent of people between 2005
and 2009. In contrast, more than 40 percent of those subsidies
benefited the people in richest 20 percent of people during that
time.
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://i2.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2013/11/fossil-fuel-subsidies.png[/img]
Image Credit: Overseas Development Institute
Subsidies for gasoline were the most unequal, with the report
citing less than five percent of those subsidies reaching the
poorest people and more than 60 percent benefiting the richest.
Fossil fuel subsidies for liquefied petroleum gas, more commonly
known as propane, had similar numbers. Kerosene subsidies were
found to have been pretty much evenly distributed.
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://i0.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2013/11/oil-subsidies.png[/img]
Image Credit: Overseas Development Institute
Subsidies to fossil fuels are also making it difficult to
compete with artificially low energy prices, therefore
discouraging private investors from putting money into clean
energy technologies. What’s more, the growing number of
countries that provide subsidies to both fossil fuels and clean
energy may actually be negating the impact of climate finance
and other clean-energy incentives, according to the report.
ODI is calling on the G20 countries to phase out all subsidies
to coal and to oil and gas exploration by 2015, and end fossil
fuel subsidies entirely by 2020. The process won’t be easy, the
report noted, finding that citizens across the globe are
generally misinformed about what they or others receive in terms
of subsidies. Additionally, special interests are dominating the
playing field, making it difficult to come to a consensus.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, individual and
political action committees affiliated with oil and gas
companies have donated $239 million to candidates and parties
since 1990. But the U.S. isn’t the only moneyed country where
special interests assure that fossil fuel subsidies reign on,
according to the report.
In India, for example, federal and state governments incur great
expense in order to provide the country’s powerful farm industry
with “cheap or free” electricity, the report said. That, along
with the fact that agricultural incomes are tax-exempt in India,
provides farmers in that country with the funds to create a
powerful lobby that “ensures that no government can hold on to
power without holding on to [fossil fuel] subsidies.”
“The barriers to reporting on subsidies and to their removal are
based on the multiple and often diverging interests of a wide
range of stakeholders in both developed and developing
countries,” the report said. “These include government
officials, industry associations, companies, trade unions,
consumers, social and labor political activists, and civil
society organizations — all of whom need to be on board if
subsidies are to be eliminated.”
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/cowboypistol.gif
HTML http://cleantechnica.com/2013/11/11/fossil-fuels-receive-500-billion-year-government-subsidies-worldwide/#2DhkFruGQfP5Tj4o.99
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page