Enough about Evergreen Solar already. It was a failed solar panel company. Get over it.
I will not get over it. It is another case of an alternative energy company scamming the tax payers. You seem comfortable with dumping a load of debt on your children and grandchildren. I DO NOT!!!!
Huge Texas Wind Farm's Turbines Will Be Made in China
This $1.5 billion wind farm -- a US-China joint venture paid for in part by Chinese banks -- will be built not with turbines from usual suspects GE or Vestas, but with Chinese-made machines from a year-old company called A-Power.
Needless to say, most of the project's green jobs will be created in China. And don't shoot the messenger, but it's hoping to secure 30 percent, or $450 million, of its financing from, yes, U.S. stimulus funds.
Someone better turn on those spin machines right about now.
I know you're a big GW proponent but I am starting to think you're running out of time to get all of its various participles implemented.
Now Libya and Iran are fully engaged with unrest of large proportions. I am thinking words to the effect of Armageddon right now. Don't know about you?
How 'bout you, gagrice? This is something else in the Middle East.
Come on larsb, you are too smart to ignore or dismiss climategate like that. The only explanation is that you have a vested interest in the scam. I would not be surprised to find out you were selling solar panels door to door in your spare time.
I have read many of the ACTUAL non-biased diagnoses of the e-mails.
Anything written by a "Conservative" blogger or Fox News-types are of course going to be having Blog-gasms about ClimateGate, because it "supposedly" PROVES their point. They acted like a bunch of five year olds.
It's not correct to just take a line or two or 10 out of context and try to make a broad statement about the validity of the SCIENCE involved.
Just because a few scientists were chatting among themselves how to keep their own findings from getting debunked by people whose goals were to derail MMGW, has NOTHING to do with the FACT that there is an unmistakable upward trend in temps over the last 25 years.
Just because a few scientists were chatting among themselves how to keep their own findings from getting debunked
Those few scientists are the leaders-heads-controllers of the data and organizations. They are the Obamas and Bidens of climatology, not some low-level scientists.
the FACT that there is an unmistakable upward trend in temps over the last 25 years.
And how do you know that is FACT? The people who have been caught editting and limiting the data, said it's a FACT, so it has to be so? Remember Richard Nixon - "I am not a crook!". Because he told you the facts, you believed they were the facts?
How do you know that the overall global temperature has gone up anymore than gagrice, houdini, or I could prove it's the same or went down? Some places are warmer and have melting ice, while other areas have been noted to be getting thicker ice and colder temps.
Personally I see no signs that my environment is any warmer than it was 45 years ago. There is no temperature or ocean-level increase that is noticeable in 45 years.
Tell that to the people in Banning with wind mills lying scattered all over the hills. Tell it to the people of MA and TX that were promised jobs with stimulus for alternative energy, only to have it end up in China. I am all for alternatives. When they become cost effective and competitive with fossil fuel sources. When we do it the old fashioned way. When entrepreneurs put up their own money. Not tax payer money.
Gary says, "I am all for alternatives. When they become cost effective and competitive with fossil fuel sources."
Well, there's a Catch-22 that you are going to have to ADAPT to, although I know that adapting is not your strong suit:
To get them down to that low cost, it's going to take Guvmint-financed R&D.
Thanks for your continued willing tax support. :shades: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . By the way - did you completely MISS the Post I laid down a few days ago saying there was a study that put Wind Power and Solar power just on the CUSP of being as cheap as coal?
And remember also:
Lifetime Costs An important factor regarding coal-fired power plants versus solar and wind is, with solar and wind, there are no fuel costs after the panels or turbines are erected. With coal there is always an ongoing input cost.
By the way - did you completely MISS the Post I laid down a few days ago saying there was a study that put Wind Power and Solar power just on the CUSP of being as cheap as coal?
As I recall, that post you are talking about actually claimed that wind and solar was already cheaper than coal. AFAIK no one here believed it though. Just more blather.
The estimate of hidden costs takes into account a variety of side-effects of coal production and use. Among them are the cost of treading elevated rates of cancer and other illnesses in coal-mining areas, environmental damage and lost tourism opportunities in coal regions where mountaintop removal is practiced and climate change resulting from elevated emissions of carbon dioxide from burning the coal.
Coal releases more carbon dioxide when burned than does natural gas or oil.
The $345 billion annual cost figure was the study's best estimate of the costs associated with burning coal. The study said the costs could be as low as $175 billion or as high as $523 billion.
"This is effectively a subsidy borne by asthmatic children and rain-polluted lakes and the climate is another way of looking at it," said Kert Davies, research director with the environmental activist group Greenpeace. "It's a tax by the industry on us that we are not seeing in our bills but we are bearing the costs."
Among them are the cost of treading elevated rates of cancer and other illnesses in coal-mining areas,
Umm, I can't imagine what the cost of "treading" those tis. Could the writer be less professional? Is the reporter then smart enough to say "maybe I'm going to get a very biased" report as it's from Greenpeace?
and lost tourism opportunities in coal regions where mountaintop removal is practiced
That's why tourism is so high in West Virginia - because they dig'em the mines, and allow everyone to come down and see the hill-people.
Coal releases more carbon dioxide when burned than does natural gas or oil.
And that assumes that carbon dioxide is an overall negative to the world, which is not a fact. It is simply a fact to those who want to use the release of carbon dioxide as a reason to stop development. Because something is changing does not necessarily mean it is ALL negative; there are many positives such as a better environment for plant growth. IF the climate is warming, the Earth becomes more hospitable towards life in general, though some species may perish and be replaced by those better adapted to live in a temperate climate Earth. The overall temperature of 59F which the Earth is at, is below optimum. 70F on average around the Earth would be nice.
IF CO2 were the ONLY bad thing about burning coal, then you'd have a point.
But the bigger danger is the toxins in coal ash.
Google it. . . . . . . . . . Look - you can dispute a lot of things around here.
But anyone trying to say that using coal (or any other fossil fuel) is more environmentally friendly than solar or wind is just not dealing in the reality we live in on Earf.
But anyone trying to say that using coal (or any other fossil fuel) is more environmentally friendly than solar or wind is just not dealing in the reality we live in on Earf.
No one is saying that. It is just the problem that we have to keep enough backup for the times the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow. That makes Wind and solar double the cost of just using coal. Which is plentiful and can be used in a relatively clean manner and DOES reduce Global Warming via SO2 emissions. I would prefer Nuclear, though it has problems and detractors as well. With Nuclear you do not need a back up system. It just works year round 24/7. Find an alternative to that and I will be for it. Oh, my favorite is Geo Thermal. But the eco nuts and Pele worshippers don't like that.
I'd love to know who is going to be right in 100 years.
Are "alternative" sources going to prove 100% successful and replace coal, and thus reduce coal to the "backup" source?
Is someone going to invent a solar panel collecting system which is 100% effective? ( That breakthrough alone would have the potential to solve ALL our energy problems. )
Are we going to discover a cheap way to jettison nuclear power waste out of the solar system and away from us and allow Nuclear to take it's rightful place ?
Are there going to be new, unknown-as-of-now sources which will take over?
Are we going to perfect cold fusion?
Are we going to figure out how to recapture 100% of our different kinds of waste and recycle all of them into power?
Are we going to discover a method of capturing "dark matter"and use it for fuel?
I wish I knew I could live another 100 years to find out. :shades:
I'm not against wind and solar. I think they're great, if corporations want to invest in it, and consumers want to install them. The government really shouldn't have any part in it other than expediting the implementation. My only problem with wind and solar is that they've been too darn slow to implement the installations. Oh, and I don't want my tax-payer subsifdizing the building or purchase.
I think the government could put some action behind their words. here's a few ideas.
1) Once a site is proposed for windmills or solar-cells, any group has 6 months to make a case why the equipment can't go where proposed. The project goes ahead if there is not some exceptional reason. That means almost all projects are quickly approved.
2) The equipment is built and assembled in the U.S.
3) The government will survey the manpower available in the prison system, and use prison labor whenever possible. Prison labor will be paid wages no greater than the equivalent wages in China.
Solar and wind projects have been hurt the most by environmental groups, and NIMBY politicians. It's ironic the people who are the most supportive, have also done the most to hurt progress.
As gagrice said though nuclear is the way to go, as it operates much more regularly than wind and solar currently. The radioactive elements are all over the Earth, so there's really no environmental issue that man is increasing radiation on Earth. I like my radioactive elements all picked up, generating power and stored in special locations, then scattered all over the environment.
Last I checked solar power = radiation from the nuclear furnace of the Sun! Why the dislike for nicely stored nuclear material which came from the Earth anyway? You do know that uranium ore comes from the Earth? I remember seeing a few of the mines at the South Rim of the Grand Canyon?
The skies shined fairly brightly the last couple of nights, as the Sun put out a few large solar flares. That radiation striking the Earth's magnetic shield produced quite a nice Aurora.
The wind is nothing more than an effect cause by the Sun's radiation striking the atmosphere, heating areas and creating currents in the atmosphere.
All energy on the Earth including our molten core's stored energy originated from our Sun. The Sun is what provides enough surface energy to the Earth, so it is not plunged to 0 degrees-Kelvin and frozen to a solid rock.
Our existence, and any life on this Earth, is due to the nuclear forces of the Sun. I say we use whatever resources and sources of energy we need to, for the benefit and preservation of humanity. If wind and solar are heldup, and people are B-Movie paranoid about nuclear plants, then fine we burn coal, oil, and natural gas. And I and many of my neighbors will go Colonial, and cut trees for firewood.
PG&E is reporting a quarterly earnings decrease partly due to "the impact of a regularly scheduled nuclear refueling outage at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant". (seekingalpha.com)
It helps operational efficiency not to leave screwdrivers behind either.
Between the crying in Wisconsin, and the revolutions in the Middle East, I'm not so sure the Mayans weren't right. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere or GW will never get high enough to matter by 12/21/12.
I think I'm going to get that 550 hp Shelby Mustang, in case the Mayans were right.
Still another study, produced by the Environmental Law Institute, took a look at energy subsidies received between 2002 and 2008. That study tabulated numerous examples of favors granted to coal. A sampler includes:
* $14 billion for an unconventional fuels tax credit that has primarily benefited coal; * $986 million for tax treatment of coal royalty payments as capital gains rather than ordinary income; * $438 million in tax-free disability payments from the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund; * $186 million in clean coal investment tax credits; * $159 million in deductions for mining reclamation reserves; * $102 million for an extended amortization period for pollution control costs.
And:
David W. Kreutzer, an energy economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation, argues that the federal government should take its thumb off the scale by eliminating subsidies for all forms of energy, even it if means slowing development of cleaner-burning fuel sources.
“We would like to get rid of all subsidies,” Dr. Kreutzer said. “We know that petroleum and coal survive just fine in places where there are no subsidies. I don’t know if that’s true for wind and solar now, but someday it will be, when the price comes down.”
H. Jeffrey Leonard, president of the Global Environment Fund, a private equity firm that invests in clean-technology ventures, said that the current subsidy structure was the legacy of 60 years of lobbying and political jockeying in Washington that largely benefits oil, coal, nuclear power and corn-based ethanol. He calls for scrapping all subsidies and letting fuel sources compete on equal ground.
David W. Kreutzer, an energy economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation, argues that the federal government should take its thumb off the scale by eliminating subsidies for all forms of energy, even it if means slowing development of cleaner-burning fuel sources.
ALL Subsidies should be pulled out of the budget. It is all corporate welfare. Much of it ends up in a few people's pockets. Many times as bonuses. All these paybacks for huge campaign contributions should be STOPPED. Let business survive on its own merit.
BUT - the consequence would be what you always harp about:
Raised electricity rates.
Question for you Gary (drumroll):
Are you willing to pay higher rates for fossil fuel power generation as a consequence of cutting the bottom line by removing ALL subsidies from all hydro-electric, petroleum and coal-based power generation?
You are assuming again that those supposed subsidies exist. Tax breaks for exploration and research are not subsidies like the Libs want you to believe. They are legitimate business expenses. When BP drills a well at the cost of several million dollars, they do and should write it off as a business expense. You need to look at the bottom line of taxes paid by the oil, gas and coal companies instead of reading that Liberal drivel filled with half truths.
Giving XYZ wind farm loan guarantees for the cost of building a wind farm is a subsidy. That means if said wind farm does not produce any revenue or the company goes broke you and I are on the hook for that farm. Same thing they have done the last 30+ years with wind and solar. We are probably still paying for the failed wind farm between LA and Palm Springs. Going into business without risking your own money is a scam perpetrated on the tax payer. Alternative energy projects are one of hundreds of such rip-offs.
One can see the results of failed government policies on wind farm by driving through parts of Southern California, east of Los Angles, such as near Palm Springs, and seeing hundreds if not thousands of acres of wind farms that where shut down after the last wind mania passed. A similar fate will occur when consumers begin receiving escalating utility rates.
Gary says, "When BP drills a well at the cost of several million dollars, they do and should write it off as a business expense."
Wait a sec there Good Buddy !!
When my company expanded our facility by 35% and spent 3 million bucks to build a larger facility with the intent of ramping up sales (which did not happen) we were not allowed to "write it off."
We owed the bank $3 million and they kept coming to collect payments on it.
Nobody "gave us" any tax breaks.
Why us an oil/gas company any different? Just because they sell petroleum products?
Um, I think you are not seeing straight if you don't even agree that they get subsidies. From the news 2/8/11:
"The days of big oil companies making billions in record breaking profits while receiving billions in taxpayer-financed subsidies must end," the wrote. "It defies common sense to cut programs that are creating jobs, helping jumpstart our manufacturing sector and strengthening the middle class while protecting taxpayer-funded handouts to big oil companies that add little to our economic or energy security."
"The fact is, oil and gas companies are doing just fine while many Americans are still struggling to find work and support their families," they wrote. And:
President Obama’s 2011 budget proposes to eliminate nine different tax expenditures that primarily benefit oil and gas companies. Cutting these special tax deductions, preferences, and credits would save the government about $45 billion over the next 10 years.
CAP has previously argued for eliminating tax expenditures for multibillion-dollar oil companies such as BP, ExxonMobil, and Chevron that would be profitable even without government subsidies. Here are the tax expenditures that the Obama administration has targeted for elimination.
1. Intangible drilling costs. Firms engaged in the exploration and development of oil or gas properties may expense (deduct in the year paid or incurred) certain types of drilling expenditures from their taxes. These costs include wages, fuel, repairs, hauling, and supplies related to and necessary for drilling and preparing wells for the production of oil and gas. Other companies incurring similar types of costs must recover this cost over the life of the investment. The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy will produce budget savings of about $7.839 billion over 10 years.
2. Deduction for tertiary injectants. Tertiary, or enhanced oil recovery, methods increase the amount of oil that a company can extract from a well by an additional 5 percent to 15 percent according to some research. This tax expenditure subsidizes the costs of tertiary injectants—the fluids, gases, and other chemicals that are pumped into oil and gas reservoirs as part of this process. The subsidy essentially gives companies government money for acting in ways that will enhance their profits. It allows companies to expense the costs of tertiary injectants, even though such costs should be recovered over time. Companies can alternatively choose to deduct these costs as an intangible drilling cost.The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy will produce budget savings of about $67 million over 10 years.
3. Percentage depletion allowance. Percentage depletion allows an independent oil company to deduct from its taxes about 15 percent from the revenue generated from a well, even if that amount exceeds the well’s total value. This means that oil companies take a deduction as long as a well is producing oil, without regard to how much, or whether, the well is still declining in value. Companies in other industries are only allowed to deduct an amount that represents the decline in their investment’s value that year. The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy to produce budget savings of about $10 billion over 10 years.
4. Passive investments. The government generally only allows investors to deduct a limited amount of losses from “passive activities” such as renting land in order to prevent tax shelters. Yet oil and gas properties are exempt from this rule. This gives oil and gas companies a competitive edge over other types of energy companies. The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy will produce budget savings of about $180 million over 10 years.
5. Domestic manufacturing tax deduction. Companies that manufacture, produce, or extract oil and gas or any primary derivative receive a manufacturing subsidy provided that the product was made in the United States. But since removing this subsidy does not affect the production of oil, the subsidy does not significantly affect business decisions and eliminating the subsidy would not affect consumer prices. The subsidy is essentially a throwaway for oil companies. The tax expenditure is provided through a deduction for 9 percent of income, subject to a limit of 50 percent of the wages paid that are allocable to domestic production during the taxable year. The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy will produce budget savings of about $17.3 billion over 10 years.
6. Geological and geophysical expenditures. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 created this tax subsidy, which allows companies to deduct the costs associated with searching for oil, recovering the costs over a two-year period. The administration expects that scaling back the amortization period to seven years would produce budget savings of about $1.1 billion over 10 years.
7. Foreign tax credit. This credit is intended to prevent the double taxation of income that is taxed abroad but also subject to tax in the United States. Yet companies, particularly oil companies, have managed to exploit this subsidy even when they don’t pay income taxes abroad. In total, adjusting the rule would prevent companies from avoiding about $8.5 billion in taxes over a 10-year period.
8. Enhanced oil recovery credit. Companies receive a 15 percent income tax credit for the costs of recovering domestic oil when they use “enhanced oil recovery” methods to extract oil that is too viscous to be extracted by conventional primary and secondary water-flooding techniques. The EOR credit is nonrefundable and is allowed if the average wellhead price of crude oil (using West Texas Intermediate as the reference) in the year before the credit is claimed is below the statutorily established threshold price of $28 (as adjusted for inflation since 1990) in the year the credit is claimed. Oil prices in fiscal year 2006 were too high for companies to receive this subsidy, but the subsidy remains in existence. Its elimination is not expected to produce budget savings.
9. Marginal well production. This provision provides a subsidy for oil and gas produced from certain types of oil and gas wells. These wells include those that produce heavy oil and those with an average production within a statutorily specified range. Oil prices were too high for companies to receive this subsidy in fiscal year 2006, but the subsidy remains in existence. Its elimination is not expected to produce budget savings.
The total government savings from eliminating these subsidies is projected to be $45 billion over 10 years.
I know $45 billion ain't much, but we could use that in other ways.
The federal government provides the oil industry with numerous tax breaks designed to ensure that domestic companies can compete with international producers and that gasoline remains cheap for American consumers. Federal tax breaks that directly benefit oil companies include: the Percentage Depletion Allowance (a subsidy of $784 million to $1 billion per year), the Nonconventional Fuel Production Credit ($769 to $900 million), immediate expensing of exploration and development costs ($200 to $255 million), the Enhanced Oil Recovery Credit ($26.3 to $100 million), foreign tax credits ($1.11 to $3.4 billion), foreign income deferrals ($183 to $318 million), and accelerated depreciation allowances ($1.0 to $4.5 billion).
Tax subsidies do not end at the federal level. The fact that most state income taxes are based on oil firms' deflated federal tax bill results in undertaxation of $125 to $323 million per year. Many states also impose fuel taxes that are lower than regular sales taxes, amounting to a subsidy of $4.8 billion per year to gasoline retailers and users. New rules under the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 are likely to provide the petroleum industry with additional tax subsidies of $2.07 billion per year. In total, annual tax breaks that support gasoline production and use amount to $9.1 to $17.8 billion.
PROGRAM SUBSIDIES
Government support of US petroleum producers does not end with tax breaks. Program subsidies that support the extraction, production, and use of petroleum and petroleum fuel products total $38 to $114.6 billion each year. The largest portion of this total is federal, state, and local governments' $36 to $112 billion worth of spending on the transportation infrastructure, such as the construction, maintenance, and repair of roads and bridges. Other program subsidies include funding of research and development ($200 to $220 million), export financing subsidies ($308.5 to $311.9 million), support from the Army Corps of Engineers ($253.2 to $270 million), the Department of Interior's Oil Resources Management Programs ($97 to $227 million), and government expenditures on regulatory oversight, pollution cleanup, and liability costs ($1.1 to $1.6 billion).
PROTECTION SUBSIDIES
Beyond program subsidies, governments, and thus taxpayers, subsidize a large portion of the protection services required by petroleum producers and users. Foremost among these is the cost of military protection for oil-rich regions of the world. US Defense Department spending allocated to safeguard the world's petroleum resources total some $55 to $96.3 billion per year. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a federal government entity designed to supplement regular oil supplies in the event of disruptions due to military conflict or natural disaster, costs taxpayers an additional $5.7 billion per year. The Coast Guard and the Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration provide other protection services totaling $566.3 million per year. Of course, local and state governments also provide protection services for oil industry companies and gasoline users. These externalized police, fire, and emergency response expenditures add up to $27.2 to $38.2 billion annually.
Environmental, health, and social costs represent the largest portion of the externalized price Americans pay for their gasoline reliance. These expenses total some $231.7 to $942.9 billion every year. The internal combustion engine contributes heavily to localized air pollution. While the amount of damage that automobile fumes cause is certainly very high, the total dollar value is rather difficult to quantify. Approximately $39 billion per year is the lowest minimum estimate made by researchers in the field of transportation cost analysis, although the actual total is surely much higher and may exceed $600 billion.
Considering that researchers have conclusively linked auto pollution to increased health problems and mortality, the CTA report's estimate of $29.3 to $542.4 billion for the annual uncompensated health costs associated with auto emissions may not adequately reflect the value of lost or diminished human life. Other costs associated with localized air pollution attributable to gasoline-powered automobiles include decreased agricultural yields ($2.1 to $4.2 billion), reduced visibility ($6.1 to $44.5 billion), and damage to buildings and materials ($1.2 to $9.6 billion). Global warming ($3 to $27.5 billion), water pollution ($8.4 to $36.8 billion), noise pollution ($6 to $12 billion), and improper disposal of batteries, tires, engine fluids, and junked cars ($4.4 billion) also add to the environmental consequences wrought by automobiles.
Some of the costs associated with the real price of gasoline go beyond the effects of acquiring and burning fuel to reflect social conditions partially or wholly created by the automobile's preeminence in the culture of the United States. Chief among these conditions is the growth of urban sprawl. While monetizing the impact of sprawl may prove a challenging endeavor, several researchers have done significant work on the subject. The costs of sprawl include: additional environmental degradation (up to $58.4 billion), aesthetic degradation of cultural sites (up to $11.7 billion), social deterioration (up to $58.4 billion), additional municipal costs (up to $53.8 billion), additional transportation costs (up to $145 billion), and the barrier effect ($11.7 to $23.4 billion). Because assessment of the costs of sprawl is somewhat subjective and because study of the topic remains in a nascent stage, the CTA report follows the lead of other researchers in field of transportation cost analysis and reduces the total of the potential cost of sprawl by 25% to 50% to arrive at a total of $163.7 to $245.5 billion per year.
OTHER EXTERNAL COSTS
Finally, external costs not included in the first four categories amount to $191.4 to $474.1 billion per year. These include: travel delays due to road congestion ($46.5 to $174.6 billion), uncompensated damages caused by car accidents ($18.3 to $77.2 billion), subsidized parking ($108.7 to $199.3 billion), and insurance losses due to automobile-related climate change ($12.9 billion). The additional cost of $5.0 to $10.1 billion associated with US dependence on imported oil could rise substantially, totaling $7.0 to $36.8 billion, in the event of a sudden price increase for crude oil.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The ultimate result of the externalization of such a large portion of the real price of gasoline is that consumers have no idea how much fueling their cars actually costs them. The majority of people paying just over $1 for a gallon of gasoline at the pump has no idea that through increased taxes, excessive insurance premiums, and inflated prices in other retail sectors that that same gallon of fuel is actually costing them between $5.60 and $15.14. When the price of gasoline is so drastically underestimated in the minds of drivers, it becomes difficult if not impossible to convince them to change their driving habits, accept alternative fuel vehicles, support mass transit, or consider progressive residential and urban development strategies.
The first step toward getting the public to recognize the damage caused by the United States' gasoline dependance is getting the public to recognize how much they are paying for this damage. The best way, in turn, to accomplish this goal is to eliminate government tax subsidies, program subsidies, and protection subsidies for petroleum companies and users, and to internalize the external environmental, health, and social costs associated with gasoline use. This would mean that consumers would see the entire cost of burning gasoline reflected in the price they pay at the pump. Drivers faced with the cost of their gasoline usage up front may have a more difficult time ignoring the harmful effects that their addiction to automobiles and the internal combustion engine have on national security, the environment, their health, and their quality of life.
With federal officials now considering a new tax on petroleum production to pay for the cleanup, the industry is fighting the measure, warning that it will lead to job losses and higher gasoline prices, as well as an increased dependence on foreign oil.
But an examination of the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process.
According to the most recent study by the Congressional Budget Office, released in 2005, capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry.
And for many small and midsize oil companies, the tax on capital investments is so low that it is more than eliminated by var-ious credits. These companies’ returns on those investments are often higher after taxes than before.
“The flow of revenues to oil companies is like the gusher at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico: heavy and constant,” said Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, who has worked alongside the Obama administration on a bill that would cut $20 billion in oil industry tax breaks over the next decade. “There is no reason for these corporations to shortchange the American taxpayer.”
You have shown you know little about business expenditures and write-offs. If I spend money on a building expansion I can amortize it out over several years. If I borrowed the money I can amortize the building and the interest is an expense of doing business and a DIRECT write off. Your wasted several page post was a rant by a Liberal that knows nothing about business expenses and write-offs. The fact that many companies wiggle out of taxes should be laid at the feet of Congress that give them loopholes in the tax code. While some would like to call loopholes in the tax code a subsidy there are distinct differences. I am not sure if your example of writing off money your company owes was a deflection, or you really do not understand what a write-off on taxes are.
why does this silly 2 person argument float to the top of most popular in forums when other much more interesting topic such as stories from the sales front lines get banned?
We owed the bank $3 million and they kept coming to collect payments on it.
Nobody "gave us" any tax breaks.
You're kidding right? Anytime a business buys something they can either depreciate it as an expense over several years, or they expense it. So if your company did an expansion, part of the cost is deducted from their income each year. Or if they buy a truck or a heating system. Similarly if a salesman buys a lunch for a customer or pays a toll, that is a business expense that comes right off the profits, and thus the corporate taxes are reduced. Everyone does this - even Joe the Plumber.
But you're right on TRUE subsidies - they should be eliminated. All subsidies should be eliminated for industries; we should not add industries that get subsidies.
While this speaks of finance, politics, and the stock market, the basic psychology discussed can apply to any topic - such as GW. I certainly believe that politicians, environmentalists and even scientists will lie when billions of $'s, many careers, and fame are involved. We're being sold a bunch of lies. Stop being so gullible. As I've said here many times before - almost all our leaders are liars or fools, or both!
So, Gary, are you willing to pay higher GAS PRICES and HIGHER UTILITY BILLS to cut the oil subsidies?
Are you willing to pay higher rates for fossil fuel power generation as a consequence of cutting the bottom line by removing ALL subsidies from all hydro-electric, petroleum and coal-based power generation?
So, Gary, are you willing to pay higher GAS PRICES and HIGHER UTILITY BILLS to cut the oil subsidies?
I happen to be one that believes competition without government intervention will give the consumer the best price. Utilities are unique in they are monopolies regulated by a commission in most states. When the legislature gets involved as they have in CA it costs the consumer dearly. Has nothing to do with viable alternatives to fossil fuel. As long as you believe tax write-offs are subsidies you will be misinformed.
There are some types of "subsidies" which are unrelated to the tax code.
Subsidies unrelated to taxation are more like "Corporate Welfare" and tax credits and breaks are called tax subsidies by some people.
My point is: Regardless of the semantic wrestling, oil companies get them.
So no one opposed to "alternative energy" has any right to complain about alternative energy companies receiving them until ALL oil and coal subsidies are eliminated.
Tax breaks are subsidies too. "Subsidy" originally only referred to taxation
Tax breaks are not tax write-offs for legitimate business expenses. If the Feds or a state says you don't have to pay taxes as an incentive, that would be a tax break or subsidy. If the same company buys a fleet of vehicles and writes them off that is a legitimate expense and a tax write-off. Not a subsidy.
Comments
I will not get over it. It is another case of an alternative energy company scamming the tax payers. You seem comfortable with dumping a load of debt on your children and grandchildren. I DO NOT!!!!
Huge Texas Wind Farm's Turbines Will Be Made in China
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2009-10/huge-texas-wind-turbines-will-b- e-made-china
"Chinese" Wind Farm in Texas: Green Jobs FAIL?
This $1.5 billion wind farm -- a US-China joint venture paid for in part by Chinese banks -- will be built not with turbines from usual suspects GE or Vestas, but with Chinese-made machines from a year-old company called A-Power.
Needless to say, most of the project's green jobs will be created in China. And don't shoot the messenger, but it's hoping to secure 30 percent, or $450 million, of its financing from, yes, U.S. stimulus funds.
Someone better turn on those spin machines right about now.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/11/chinese-wind-farm-texas-green-jobs-fail.- php
You can spin it anyway you like. It does not change the FACTS. We are being ripped off by the Alternative Energy industry, plain and simple.
Now Libya and Iran are fully engaged with unrest of large proportions. I am thinking words to the effect of Armageddon right now. Don't know about you?
How 'bout you, gagrice? This is something else in the Middle East.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
The pendulum swings:
GOP-Controlled House Slashes E15, Green House Gas Funding (Green Car Advisor)
They are ALL based on our beliefs and prejudices.
Um, no. Did not happen that way. That's your SUBJECTIVE OPINION but it's incorrect.
"Alternative Energy Scam?" That's a new term for you.
If it produces energy, it AIN'T a scam.
It's merely an ALTERNATIVE to fossil fuel (traditional) energy sources.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Anything written by a "Conservative" blogger or Fox News-types are of course going to be having Blog-gasms about ClimateGate, because it "supposedly" PROVES their point. They acted like a bunch of five year olds.
It's not correct to just take a line or two or 10 out of context and try to make a broad statement about the validity of the SCIENCE involved.
Just because a few scientists were chatting among themselves how to keep their own findings from getting debunked by people whose goals were to derail MMGW, has NOTHING to do with the FACT that there is an unmistakable upward trend in temps over the last 25 years.
Those few scientists are the leaders-heads-controllers of the data and organizations. They are the Obamas and Bidens of climatology, not some low-level scientists.
the FACT that there is an unmistakable upward trend in temps over the last 25 years.
And how do you know that is FACT? The people who have been caught editting and limiting the data, said it's a FACT, so it has to be so? Remember Richard Nixon - "I am not a crook!". Because he told you the facts, you believed they were the facts?
How do you know that the overall global temperature has gone up anymore than gagrice, houdini, or I could prove it's the same or went down? Some places are warmer and have melting ice, while other areas have been noted to be getting thicker ice and colder temps.
Personally I see no signs that my environment is any warmer than it was 45 years ago. There is no temperature or ocean-level increase that is noticeable in 45 years.
Tell that to the people in Banning with wind mills lying scattered all over the hills. Tell it to the people of MA and TX that were promised jobs with stimulus for alternative energy, only to have it end up in China. I am all for alternatives. When they become cost effective and competitive with fossil fuel sources. When we do it the old fashioned way. When entrepreneurs put up their own money. Not tax payer money.
Well, there's a Catch-22 that you are going to have to ADAPT to, although I know that adapting is not your strong suit:
To get them down to that low cost, it's going to take Guvmint-financed R&D.
Thanks for your continued willing tax support. :shades:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
By the way - did you completely MISS the Post I laid down a few days ago saying there was a study that put Wind Power and Solar power just on the CUSP of being as cheap as coal?
And remember also:
Lifetime Costs
An important factor regarding coal-fired power plants versus solar and wind is, with solar and wind, there are no fuel costs after the panels or turbines are erected. With coal there is always an ongoing input cost.
As I recall, that post you are talking about actually claimed that wind and solar was already cheaper than coal. AFAIK no one here believed it though. Just more blather.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Hidden costs of coal
HEALTH, ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
The estimate of hidden costs takes into account a variety of side-effects of coal production and use. Among them are the cost of treading elevated rates of cancer and other illnesses in coal-mining areas, environmental damage and lost tourism opportunities in coal regions where mountaintop removal is practiced and climate change resulting from elevated emissions of carbon dioxide from burning the coal.
Coal releases more carbon dioxide when burned than does natural gas or oil.
The $345 billion annual cost figure was the study's best estimate of the costs associated with burning coal. The study said the costs could be as low as $175 billion or as high as $523 billion.
"This is effectively a subsidy borne by asthmatic children and rain-polluted lakes and the climate is another way of looking at it," said Kert Davies, research director with the environmental activist group Greenpeace. "It's a tax by the industry on us that we are not seeing in our bills but we are bearing the costs."
Umm, I can't imagine what the cost of "treading" those tis. Could the writer be less professional? Is the reporter then smart enough to say "maybe I'm going to get a very biased" report as it's from Greenpeace?
and lost tourism opportunities in coal regions where mountaintop removal is practiced
That's why tourism is so high in West Virginia - because they dig'em the mines, and allow everyone to come down and see the hill-people.
Coal releases more carbon dioxide when burned than does natural gas or oil.
And that assumes that carbon dioxide is an overall negative to the world, which is not a fact. It is simply a fact to those who want to use the release of carbon dioxide as a reason to stop development. Because something is changing does not necessarily mean it is ALL negative; there are many positives such as a better environment for plant growth. IF the climate is warming, the Earth becomes more hospitable towards life in general, though some species may perish and be replaced by those better adapted to live in a temperate climate Earth. The overall temperature of 59F which the Earth is at, is below optimum. 70F on average around the Earth would be nice.
But the bigger danger is the toxins in coal ash.
Google it.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Look - you can dispute a lot of things around here.
But anyone trying to say that using coal (or any other fossil fuel) is more environmentally friendly than solar or wind is just not dealing in the reality we live in on Earf.
No one is saying that. It is just the problem that we have to keep enough backup for the times the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow. That makes Wind and solar double the cost of just using coal. Which is plentiful and can be used in a relatively clean manner and DOES reduce Global Warming via SO2 emissions. I would prefer Nuclear, though it has problems and detractors as well. With Nuclear you do not need a back up system. It just works year round 24/7. Find an alternative to that and I will be for it. Oh, my favorite is Geo Thermal. But the eco nuts and Pele worshippers don't like that.
Are "alternative" sources going to prove 100% successful and replace coal, and thus reduce coal to the "backup" source?
Is someone going to invent a solar panel collecting system which is 100% effective? ( That breakthrough alone would have the potential to solve ALL our energy problems. )
Are we going to discover a cheap way to jettison nuclear power waste out of the solar system and away from us and allow Nuclear to take it's rightful place ?
Are there going to be new, unknown-as-of-now sources which will take over?
Are we going to perfect cold fusion?
Are we going to figure out how to recapture 100% of our different kinds of waste and recycle all of them into power?
Are we going to discover a method of capturing "dark matter"and use it for fuel?
I wish I knew I could live another 100 years to find out. :shades:
My only problem with wind and solar is that they've been too darn slow to implement the installations. Oh, and I don't want my tax-payer subsifdizing the building or purchase.
I think the government could put some action behind their words. here's a few ideas.
1) Once a site is proposed for windmills or solar-cells, any group has 6 months to make a case why the equipment can't go where proposed. The project goes ahead if there is not some exceptional reason. That means almost all projects are quickly approved.
2) The equipment is built and assembled in the U.S.
3) The government will survey the manpower available in the prison system, and use prison labor whenever possible. Prison labor will be paid wages no greater than the equivalent wages in China.
Solar and wind projects have been hurt the most by environmental groups, and NIMBY politicians. It's ironic the people who are the most supportive, have also done the most to hurt progress.
As gagrice said though nuclear is the way to go, as it operates much more regularly than wind and solar currently. The radioactive elements are all over the Earth, so there's really no environmental issue that man is increasing radiation on Earth. I like my radioactive elements all picked up, generating power and stored in special locations, then scattered all over the environment.
Me too, plus I could use that extra 100 years to continue to work on my golf game, as the first 50 years has been woefully inadequate.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
The skies shined fairly brightly the last couple of nights, as the Sun put out a few large solar flares. That radiation striking the Earth's magnetic shield produced quite a nice Aurora.
The wind is nothing more than an effect cause by the Sun's radiation striking the atmosphere, heating areas and creating currents in the atmosphere.
All energy on the Earth including our molten core's stored energy originated from our Sun. The Sun is what provides enough surface energy to the Earth, so it is not plunged to 0 degrees-Kelvin and frozen to a solid rock.
Our existence, and any life on this Earth, is due to the nuclear forces of the Sun. I say we use whatever resources and sources of energy we need to, for the benefit and preservation of humanity. If wind and solar are heldup, and people are B-Movie paranoid about nuclear plants, then fine we burn coal, oil, and natural gas. And I and many of my neighbors will go Colonial, and cut trees for firewood.
I don't know how you figure that.
PG&E is reporting a quarterly earnings decrease partly due to "the impact of a regularly scheduled nuclear refueling outage at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant". (seekingalpha.com)
It helps operational efficiency not to leave screwdrivers behind either.
I think I'm going to get that 550 hp Shelby Mustang, in case the Mayans were right.
We subsidize both oil and coal too.
Still another study, produced by the Environmental Law Institute, took a look at energy subsidies received between 2002 and 2008. That study tabulated numerous examples of favors granted to coal. A sampler includes:
* $14 billion for an unconventional fuels tax credit that has primarily benefited coal;
* $986 million for tax treatment of coal royalty payments as capital gains rather than ordinary income;
* $438 million in tax-free disability payments from the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund;
* $186 million in clean coal investment tax credits;
* $159 million in deductions for mining reclamation reserves;
* $102 million for an extended amortization period for pollution control costs.
And:
David W. Kreutzer, an energy economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation, argues that the federal government should take its thumb off the scale by eliminating subsidies for all forms of energy, even it if means slowing development of cleaner-burning fuel sources.
“We would like to get rid of all subsidies,” Dr. Kreutzer said. “We know that petroleum and coal survive just fine in places where there are no subsidies. I don’t know if that’s true for wind and solar now, but someday it will be, when the price comes down.”
H. Jeffrey Leonard, president of the Global Environment Fund, a private equity firm that invests in clean-technology ventures, said that the current subsidy structure was the legacy of 60 years of lobbying and political jockeying in Washington that largely benefits oil, coal, nuclear power and corn-based ethanol. He calls for scrapping all subsidies and letting fuel sources compete on equal ground.
ALL Subsidies should be pulled out of the budget. It is all corporate welfare. Much of it ends up in a few people's pockets. Many times as bonuses. All these paybacks for huge campaign contributions should be STOPPED. Let business survive on its own merit.
BUT - the consequence would be what you always harp about:
Raised electricity rates.
Question for you Gary (drumroll):
Are you willing to pay higher rates for fossil fuel power generation as a consequence of cutting the bottom line by removing ALL subsidies from all hydro-electric, petroleum and coal-based power generation?
Maybe the next inhabitants will be as reasonable as I am so they can all get along !
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Giving XYZ wind farm loan guarantees for the cost of building a wind farm is a subsidy. That means if said wind farm does not produce any revenue or the company goes broke you and I are on the hook for that farm. Same thing they have done the last 30+ years with wind and solar. We are probably still paying for the failed wind farm between LA and Palm Springs. Going into business without risking your own money is a scam perpetrated on the tax payer. Alternative energy projects are one of hundreds of such rip-offs.
http://activerain.com/blogsview/2120853/wind-farms-do-not-live-up-to-expectation- s-sepp-project
Don't count on the wind to power your home. CA failed system of alternative energy has already cost consumers a fortune in higher utilities.
Wait a sec there Good Buddy !!
When my company expanded our facility by 35% and spent 3 million bucks to build a larger facility with the intent of ramping up sales (which did not happen) we were not allowed to "write it off."
We owed the bank $3 million and they kept coming to collect payments on it.
Nobody "gave us" any tax breaks.
Why us an oil/gas company any different? Just because they sell petroleum products?
Um, I think you are not seeing straight if you don't even agree that they get subsidies. From the news 2/8/11:
"The days of big oil companies making billions in record breaking profits while receiving billions in taxpayer-financed subsidies must end," the wrote. "It defies common sense to cut programs that are creating jobs, helping jumpstart our manufacturing sector and strengthening the middle class while protecting taxpayer-funded handouts to big oil companies that add little to our economic or energy security."
"The fact is, oil and gas companies are doing just fine while many Americans are still struggling to find work and support their families," they wrote.
And:
President Obama’s 2011 budget proposes to eliminate nine different tax expenditures that primarily benefit oil and gas companies. Cutting these special tax deductions, preferences, and credits would save the government about $45 billion over the next 10 years.
CAP has previously argued for eliminating tax expenditures for multibillion-dollar oil companies such as BP, ExxonMobil, and Chevron that would be profitable even without government subsidies. Here are the tax expenditures that the Obama administration has targeted for elimination.
1. Intangible drilling costs. Firms engaged in the exploration and development of oil or gas properties may expense (deduct in the year paid or incurred) certain types of drilling expenditures from their taxes. These costs include wages, fuel, repairs, hauling, and supplies related to and necessary for drilling and preparing wells for the production of oil and gas. Other companies incurring similar types of costs must recover this cost over the life of the investment. The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy will produce budget savings of about $7.839 billion over 10 years.
2. Deduction for tertiary injectants. Tertiary, or enhanced oil recovery, methods increase the amount of oil that a company can extract from a well by an additional 5 percent to 15 percent according to some research. This tax expenditure subsidizes the costs of tertiary injectants—the fluids, gases, and other chemicals that are pumped into oil and gas reservoirs as part of this process. The subsidy essentially gives companies government money for acting in ways that will enhance their profits. It allows companies to expense the costs of tertiary injectants, even though such costs should be recovered over time. Companies can alternatively choose to deduct these costs as an intangible drilling cost.The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy will produce budget savings of about $67 million over 10 years.
3. Percentage depletion allowance. Percentage depletion allows an independent oil company to deduct from its taxes about 15 percent from the revenue generated from a well, even if that amount exceeds the well’s total value. This means that oil companies take a deduction as long as a well is producing oil, without regard to how much, or whether, the well is still declining in value. Companies in other industries are only allowed to deduct an amount that represents the decline in their investment’s value that year. The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy to produce budget savings of about $10 billion over 10 years.
5. Domestic manufacturing tax deduction. Companies that manufacture, produce, or extract oil and gas or any primary derivative receive a manufacturing subsidy provided that the product was made in the United States. But since removing this subsidy does not affect the production of oil, the subsidy does not significantly affect business decisions and eliminating the subsidy would not affect consumer prices. The subsidy is essentially a throwaway for oil companies. The tax expenditure is provided through a deduction for 9 percent of income, subject to a limit of 50 percent of the wages paid that are allocable to domestic production during the taxable year. The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy will produce budget savings of about $17.3 billion over 10 years.
6. Geological and geophysical expenditures. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 created this tax subsidy, which allows companies to deduct the costs associated with searching for oil, recovering the costs over a two-year period. The administration expects that scaling back the amortization period to seven years would produce budget savings of about $1.1 billion over 10 years.
7. Foreign tax credit. This credit is intended to prevent the double taxation of income that is taxed abroad but also subject to tax in the United States. Yet companies, particularly oil companies, have managed to exploit this subsidy even when they don’t pay income taxes abroad. In total, adjusting the rule would prevent companies from avoiding about $8.5 billion in taxes over a 10-year period.
8. Enhanced oil recovery credit. Companies receive a 15 percent income tax credit for the costs of recovering domestic oil when they use “enhanced oil recovery” methods to extract oil that is too viscous to be extracted by conventional primary and secondary water-flooding techniques. The EOR credit is nonrefundable and is allowed if the average wellhead price of crude oil (using West Texas Intermediate as the reference) in the year before the credit is claimed is below the statutorily established threshold price of $28 (as adjusted for inflation since 1990) in the year the credit is claimed. Oil prices in fiscal year 2006 were too high for companies to receive this subsidy, but the subsidy remains in existence. Its elimination is not expected to produce budget savings.
9. Marginal well production. This provision provides a subsidy for oil and gas produced from certain types of oil and gas wells. These wells include those that produce heavy oil and those with an average production within a statutorily specified range. Oil prices were too high for companies to receive this subsidy in fiscal year 2006, but the subsidy remains in existence. Its elimination is not expected to produce budget savings.
The total government savings from eliminating these subsidies is projected to be $45 billion over 10 years.
I know $45 billion ain't much, but we could use that in other ways.
The federal government provides the oil industry with numerous tax breaks designed to ensure that domestic companies can compete with international producers and that gasoline remains cheap for American consumers. Federal tax breaks that directly benefit oil companies include: the Percentage Depletion Allowance (a subsidy of $784 million to $1 billion per year), the Nonconventional Fuel Production Credit ($769 to $900 million), immediate expensing of exploration and development costs ($200 to $255 million), the Enhanced Oil Recovery Credit ($26.3 to $100 million), foreign tax credits ($1.11 to $3.4 billion), foreign income deferrals ($183 to $318 million), and accelerated depreciation allowances ($1.0 to $4.5 billion).
Tax subsidies do not end at the federal level. The fact that most state income taxes are based on oil firms' deflated federal tax bill results in undertaxation of $125 to $323 million per year. Many states also impose fuel taxes that are lower than regular sales taxes, amounting to a subsidy of $4.8 billion per year to gasoline retailers and users. New rules under the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 are likely to provide the petroleum industry with additional tax subsidies of $2.07 billion per year. In total, annual tax breaks that support gasoline production and use amount to $9.1 to $17.8 billion.
PROGRAM SUBSIDIES
Government support of US petroleum producers does not end with tax breaks. Program subsidies that support the extraction, production, and use of petroleum and petroleum fuel products total $38 to $114.6 billion each year. The largest portion of this total is federal, state, and local governments' $36 to $112 billion worth of spending on the transportation infrastructure, such as the construction, maintenance, and repair of roads and bridges. Other program subsidies include funding of research and development ($200 to $220 million), export financing subsidies ($308.5 to $311.9 million), support from the Army Corps of Engineers ($253.2 to $270 million), the Department of Interior's Oil Resources Management Programs ($97 to $227 million), and government expenditures on regulatory oversight, pollution cleanup, and liability costs ($1.1 to $1.6 billion).
PROTECTION SUBSIDIES
Beyond program subsidies, governments, and thus taxpayers, subsidize a large portion of the protection services required by petroleum producers and users. Foremost among these is the cost of military protection for oil-rich regions of the world. US Defense Department spending allocated to safeguard the world's petroleum resources total some $55 to $96.3 billion per year. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a federal government entity designed to supplement regular oil supplies in the event of disruptions due to military conflict or natural disaster, costs taxpayers an additional $5.7 billion per year. The Coast Guard and the Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration provide other protection services totaling $566.3 million per year. Of course, local and state governments also provide protection services for oil industry companies and gasoline users. These externalized police, fire, and emergency response expenditures add up to $27.2 to $38.2 billion annually.
Environmental, health, and social costs represent the largest portion of the externalized price Americans pay for their gasoline reliance. These expenses total some $231.7 to $942.9 billion every year. The internal combustion engine contributes heavily to localized air pollution. While the amount of damage that automobile fumes cause is certainly very high, the total dollar value is rather difficult to quantify. Approximately $39 billion per year is the lowest minimum estimate made by researchers in the field of transportation cost analysis, although the actual total is surely much higher and may exceed $600 billion.
Considering that researchers have conclusively linked auto pollution to increased health problems and mortality, the CTA report's estimate of $29.3 to $542.4 billion for the annual uncompensated health costs associated with auto emissions may not adequately reflect the value of lost or diminished human life. Other costs associated with localized air pollution attributable to gasoline-powered automobiles include decreased agricultural yields ($2.1 to $4.2 billion), reduced visibility ($6.1 to $44.5 billion), and damage to buildings and materials ($1.2 to $9.6 billion). Global warming ($3 to $27.5 billion), water pollution ($8.4 to $36.8 billion), noise pollution ($6 to $12 billion), and improper disposal of batteries, tires, engine fluids, and junked cars ($4.4 billion) also add to the environmental consequences wrought by automobiles.
Some of the costs associated with the real price of gasoline go beyond the effects of acquiring and burning fuel to reflect social conditions partially or wholly created by the automobile's preeminence in the culture of the United States. Chief among these conditions is the growth of urban sprawl. While monetizing the impact of sprawl may prove a challenging endeavor, several researchers have done significant work on the subject. The costs of sprawl include: additional environmental degradation (up to $58.4 billion), aesthetic degradation of cultural sites (up to $11.7 billion), social deterioration (up to $58.4 billion), additional municipal costs (up to $53.8 billion), additional transportation costs (up to $145 billion), and the barrier effect ($11.7 to $23.4 billion). Because assessment of the costs of sprawl is somewhat subjective and because study of the topic remains in a nascent stage, the CTA report follows the lead of other researchers in field of transportation cost analysis and reduces the total of the potential cost of sprawl by 25% to 50% to arrive at a total of $163.7 to $245.5 billion per year.
OTHER EXTERNAL COSTS
Finally, external costs not included in the first four categories amount to $191.4 to $474.1 billion per year. These include: travel delays due to road congestion ($46.5 to $174.6 billion), uncompensated damages caused by car accidents ($18.3 to $77.2 billion), subsidized parking ($108.7 to $199.3 billion), and insurance losses due to automobile-related climate change ($12.9 billion). The additional cost of $5.0 to $10.1 billion associated with US dependence on imported oil could rise substantially, totaling $7.0 to $36.8 billion, in the event of a sudden price increase for crude oil.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The ultimate result of the externalization of such a large portion of the real price of gasoline is that consumers have no idea how much fueling their cars actually costs them. The majority of people paying just over $1 for a gallon of gasoline at the pump has no idea that through increased taxes, excessive insurance premiums, and inflated prices in other retail sectors that that same gallon of fuel is actually costing them between $5.60 and $15.14. When the price of gasoline is so drastically underestimated in the minds of drivers, it becomes difficult if not impossible to convince them to change their driving habits, accept alternative fuel vehicles, support mass transit, or consider progressive residential and urban development strategies.
The first step toward getting the public to recognize the damage caused by the United States' gasoline dependance is getting the public to recognize how much they are paying for this damage. The best way, in turn, to accomplish this goal is to eliminate government tax subsidies, program subsidies, and protection subsidies for petroleum companies and users, and to internalize the external environmental, health, and social costs associated with gasoline use. This would mean that consumers would see the entire cost of burning gasoline reflected in the price they pay at the pump. Drivers faced with the cost of their gasoline usage up front may have a more difficult time ignoring the harmful effects that their addiction to automobiles and the internal combustion engine have on national security, the environment, their health, and their quality of life.
But an examination of the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process.
According to the most recent study by the Congressional Budget Office, released in 2005, capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry.
And for many small and midsize oil companies, the tax on capital investments is so low that it is more than eliminated by var-ious credits. These companies’ returns on those investments are often higher after taxes than before.
“The flow of revenues to oil companies is like the gusher at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico: heavy and constant,” said Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, who has worked alongside the Obama administration on a bill that would cut $20 billion in oil industry tax breaks over the next decade. “There is no reason for these corporations to shortchange the American taxpayer.”
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Just askin....
:shades:
Nobody "gave us" any tax breaks.
You're kidding right? Anytime a business buys something they can either depreciate it as an expense over several years, or they expense it. So if your company did an expansion, part of the cost is deducted from their income each year. Or if they buy a truck or a heating system. Similarly if a salesman buys a lunch for a customer or pays a toll, that is a business expense that comes right off the profits, and thus the corporate taxes are reduced. Everyone does this - even Joe the Plumber.
But you're right on TRUE subsidies - they should be eliminated. All subsidies should be eliminated for industries; we should not add industries that get subsidies.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/market-crash-2011-it-will-hit-by-christmas-2011- -02-22
Anyone with an intense emotional interest in a subject loses the ability to observe it objectively
That could apply to a lot of threads around here; Ford v Chevy, Hyundai v Mercedes, gas v diesel.
Corporations don't pay "income" taxes. They do pay sales taxes.
It's a tax break.
big difference.
Are you willing to pay higher rates for fossil fuel power generation as a consequence of cutting the bottom line by removing ALL subsidies from all hydro-electric, petroleum and coal-based power generation?
Back to tax class 101 for you:
No. 1: Wal-Mart Stores
Sales: $401 billion
Pretax income: $20.9 billion
Income taxes: $7.1 billion
Tax rate: 34.2%
$1.2 billion of Wal-Mart Stores' taxes are international.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exxon-walmart-business-washington-corporate-- taxes_slide_2.html
Economists disagree on "who" actually pays it.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/23/who-ultimately-pays-the-corporate-i- ncome-tax/
They don't really pay it. The shareholders pay it, the customers of the products pay it, the employees who have profit sharing pay it, et al.
Anyone else like crunchy food besides me?
New Idea to Reduce Global Warming: Everyone Eat Insects (Yahoo)
I happen to be one that believes competition without government intervention will give the consumer the best price. Utilities are unique in they are monopolies regulated by a commission in most states. When the legislature gets involved as they have in CA it costs the consumer dearly. Has nothing to do with viable alternatives to fossil fuel. As long as you believe tax write-offs are subsidies you will be misinformed.
There are some types of "subsidies" which are unrelated to the tax code.
Subsidies unrelated to taxation are more like "Corporate Welfare" and tax credits and breaks are called tax subsidies by some people.
My point is: Regardless of the semantic wrestling, oil companies get them.
So no one opposed to "alternative energy" has any right to complain about alternative energy companies receiving them until ALL oil and coal subsidies are eliminated.
Let EVERYONE play on an even playing field.
Tax breaks are not tax write-offs for legitimate business expenses. If the Feds or a state says you don't have to pay taxes as an incentive, that would be a tax break or subsidy. If the same company buys a fleet of vehicles and writes them off that is a legitimate expense and a tax write-off. Not a subsidy.