“Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

I'm sure you know this, but whether it's a subsidy or not isn't generally the best measure of its merits/demerits.

true it is however the true measure is that tax or fee charged to help reduce your usage is is it really going to have a positive impact in the long term ? The short answer is NO. The long answer is no it won't make any noticeable difference.

[Lake-Effect]

Many are missing the main point around subsidies/tax breaks/etc (I'll use the word incentives).

We choose to incentivize things we want to encourage. If you accept that renewable energy alternatives are a good thing, then you would be amenable to incentivizing their development. There have been some big wins from this, such as the installed cost per watt of solar dropping to under $1/watt. Solar is getting much closer to competing straight up. It's already a no-brainer for boats, and for many remote uses.

Likewise, we choose to disincentivize things that we want to moderate the consumption of. Fossil fuel is still awesome and important; it's still the most energy-dense "portable" energy source (... til we have portable nuclear reactors). But its use is having consequences, and it is a finite resource. If you agree that moderating or reducing the use of fossil fuels (to prolong its availability, if for no other reason) is a good idea, then it doesn't really make sense to continue to incentivize its production and use. And that's ignoring the fact that it's already a mature and profitable industry.

tldr: if we know we need to move away from them (sooner or later), why do we continue to incentivize increases in the production and use of fossil fuels?

Lots of macroeconomic responses to this, of course, but none justify encouraging the GROWTH of fossil fuel consumption.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Many are missing the main point around subsidies/tax breaks/etc (I'll use the word incentives).

We choose to incentivize things we want to encourage. If you accept that renewable energy alternatives are a good thing, then you would be amenable to incentivizing their development. There have been some big wins from this, such as the installed cost per watt of solar dropping to under $1/watt. Solar is getting much closer to competing straight up. It's already a no-brainer for boats, and for many remote uses.

Likewise, we choose to disincentivize things that we want to moderate the consumption of. Fossil fuel is still awesome and important; it's still the most dense "portable" energy source. But its use is having consequences, and it is a finite resource. If you agree that moderating or reducing the use of fossil fuels (to prolong its availability, if for no other reason) is a good idea, then it doesn't really make sense to continue to incentivize its production and use. And that's ignoring the fact that it's already a mature and profitable industry.

tldr: if we know we need to move away from them (sooner or later), why do we continue to incentivize increases in the production and use of fossil fuels?

want away from FF then instead of incentivising solar and wind . Put it all into SMR technology or molten salt it would make more sense and is actually doable and attainable .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

true it is however the true measure is that tax or fee charged to help reduce your usage is is it really going to have a positive impact in the long term ? The short answer is NO. The long answer is no it won't make any noticeable difference.

Depends on what the actual (vs. stated) goals are I suppose.

If it's to reduce demand for fossil fuels, then it'll probably accomplish that, but only to the extent that such demand is discretionary. Big downsides for non-discretionary consumers, esp. for the working & middle class. Unless, as promised but unlikely to ever be realized, there's some sort of rebate based on income, etc. But then that would defeat the original disincentive to consume, no?

If it's to make renewables more attractive by improving their technology and subsidizing their costs, then probably the same as above.

If it's to mitigate if not reverse the claimed negative impacts of AGW . . .

If it's to try and put fossil fuel cos. out of business it will fail.

If it's to redistribute wealth then it will fail, and in the process create even more division & polarization, just like it's already done in several major W. European countries.

But then, like so many other memes & talking points these days, it's something the advocates love to talk about but rarely understand how to actually implement.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Many are missing the main point around subsidies/tax breaks/etc (I'll use the word incentives).

We choose to incentivize things we want to encourage. If you accept that renewable energy alternatives are a good thing, then you would be amenable to incentivizing their development. There have been some big wins from this, such as the installed cost per watt of solar dropping to under $1/watt. Solar is getting much closer to competing straight up. It's already a no-brainer for boats, and for many remote uses.

Likewise, we choose to disincentivize things that we want to moderate the consumption of. Fossil fuel is still awesome and important; it's still the most energy-dense "portable" energy source (... til we have portable nuclear reactors). But its use is having consequences, and it is a finite resource. If you agree that moderating or reducing the use of fossil fuels (to prolong its availability, if for no other reason) is a good idea, then it doesn't really make sense to continue to incentivize its production and use. And that's ignoring the fact that it's already a mature and profitable industry.

tldr: if we know we need to move away from them (sooner or later), why do we continue to incentivize increases in the production and use of fossil fuels?

Lots of macroeconomic responses to this, of course, but none justify encouraging the GROWTH of fossil fuel consumption.

Where you been? The issue being discussed in the last few pages is HOW exactly are we incentivizing and encouraging fossil fuel production and use? By not disincentivizing it? It's already quite heavily taxed at various different levels of production, distribution & consumption. Legislation such as the Clean Water Act, fuel efficiency standards, and strict controls on harmful toxins such as sulfur in diesel fuel have improved air quality dramatically, at least in Western developed countries. These have all come after achieving broad political consensus, but at a cost that is ultimately paid by consumers. There is disagreement over the extent of the impacts of CO2 which is fine for you to disagree with but disingenuous for you to continue ignoring.

I think you are misinformed about the true cost of solar, but if you are correct that it has now achieved parity with fossil fuels then it can only logically follow that it doesn't require any add'l help. Even angelic-type humans generally act in their own self-interest, so who wouldn't prefer writing a check to a solar panel co. as opposed to the local utility to meet their heat and air conditioning needs? In fact, they often do exactly that in not insignificant numbers, but only where economically feasible to do so, and even then not without taxpayer supported "incentives" () at various levels. This is generally limited to new construction in places with abundant sunshine like Phoenix, AZ and Las Vegas, NV. It's certainly being done elsewhere, as are windmills, but not without much more significant govt taxa . . . errr . . . I mean subsidies to cover the added costs. Just ask Angela Markel & Emmanuel Macron how that's all gone for ordinary working Germans & French.

Please explain this "support," specifically targeted to the fossil fuel industry, you (and many others) often complain about but never actually define.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

The issue being discussed in the last few pages is HOW exactly are we incentivizing and encouraging fossil fuel production and use?

There's little disagreement that such incentives persist.

Even you and Forbes agree that like other industries, fossil fuel companies recieve a series of incentives.

If you don't agree that we should moderate our usage of fossil fuels, or you believe that we can't for economic or other reasons, then it's understandable that you wouldn't be in favour of any changes.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

...If you agree that moderating or reducing the use of fossil fuels...is a good idea, then it doesn't really make sense to continue to incentivize its production and use. And that's ignoring the fact that it's already a mature and profitable industry.

A very fair point, but a) contextually I'd suggest using the term "subsidize" instead of "incentivize" in the above quote, and b) a big problem is that the ~subsidies given to oil/gas are given through the entire economy, such that it's not per se fair to single out oil/gas to not get tax breaks that every other industry is given (e.g. code that allows depreciation over 2 instead of 15 years in the effort to boost the economy). Oil/gas does get their unique tax breaks, but again so do other sectors. So on the one hand I think that oil/gas is treated generally fairly vs other sectors, but the main difference is the economy of scale thing, such that 10% tax break to a gazillion dollar industry isn't the same to the treasury as a 10% tax break to a $5billion/year industry. I agree that oil/gas is too mature to need breaks...but the code is what it is.

Originally Posted by Exile

...Please explain this "support," specifically targeted to the fossil fuel industry, you (and many others) often complain about but never actually define.

Countless resources on this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies
https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...as-tax-breaks/
From the latter website 37bb over 10 years (not including military intervention costs which far exceed these numbers):

Exception to passive loss limitation for working interests in oil and natural gas properties
Location in tax code: 26 U.S.C. § 469(c)(3)
$310 million between 2016 and 2026

Deductions for the costs of drilling wells
Location in tax code: 26 U.S.C. § 263(c)
$13.1 billion between 2016 and 2026

Domestic manufacturing deduction for oil and gas production
Location in tax code: 26 U.S.C. § 199
$10.9 billion between 2016 and 2026

Deductions for the depletion of oil and gas deposits
Location in tax code: 26 U.S.C. § 613A(c)(1)
$12.1 billion between 2016 and 2026

Deductions for the depletion of oil shale deposits
Location in tax code: 26 U.S.C. § 613(b)(2)(B)
$840 million between 2016 and 2026

Deductions for the costs of oil shale exploration and development
Location in tax code: 26 U.S.C. § 617
$768 million between 2016 and 2026

Amortization of geological and geophysical expenditures
Location in tax code: 26 U.S.C. § 167(h)
$1.3 billion between 2016 and 2026

Deductions for tertiary injectants
Location in tax code: 26 U.S.C. § 193
$100 million between 2016 and 2026

Exception to passive loss limitation for working interests in oil and natural gas properties
Location in tax code: 26 U.S.C. § 469(c)(3)
$310 million between 2016 and 2026

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Singularity

A very fair point, but a) contextually I'd suggest using the term "subsidize" instead of "incentivize" in the above quote, and b) a big problem is that the ~subsidies given to oil/gas are given through the entire economy, such that it's not per se fair to single out oil/gas to not get tax breaks that every other industry is given (e.g. code that allows depreciation over 2 instead of 15 years in the effort to boost the economy). Oil/gas does get their unique tax breaks, but again so do other sectors. So on the one hand I think that oil/gas is treated generally fairly vs other sectors, but the main difference is the economy of scale thing, such that 10% tax break to a gazillion dollar industry isn't the same to the treasury as a 10% tax break to a $5billion/year industry. I agree that oil/gas is too mature to need breaks...but the code is what it is.

Yes one could argue that oil and gas simply recieve breaks like every other industry. But the point is, we want just about every other industry to do well, and we want fossil fuel consumption to stop growing so much and maybe even start decreasing when possible.

And fossil fuel is also unique in that its current prices do not, in most cases, account for the full life-cycle cost of its use.


Here's a link to a paper (PDF) from that hotbed of soshulist group-think, the IMF.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Yes one could argue that oil and gas simply recieve breaks like every other industry. But the point is, we want (just about) every other industry to do well, and we want fossil fuel consumption to stop growing so much and maybe even start decreasing when possible.

And fossil fuel is also unique in that its current prices do not, in most cases, account for the full life-cycle cost of its use.


Here's a link to a paper (PDF) from that hotbed of soshulist group-think, the IMF.

why do people think the use of FF is a negative on the planet?

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

why do people think the use of FF is a negative on the planet?

It's possible you held your breath too long the last time you scraped the bottom of your hull.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by newhaul

why do people think the use of FF is a negative on the planet?

Fossil fuel is used generally to produce energy and create products created from fossil fuel molecules.

As an energy source, as best can be told, it kills more people than the other options.
As a source of producing products, as best can be told, it creates objects in our midst that we don't want and can't figure out how to get rid of, versus other available product substrates.
As a general principle, the stuff will run out sooner or later.
Using fossil fuels puts our economy in a position subject to the whims of people with no vested interest in our economy or welfare and who have demonstrated time and again a willingness to damage our economy to support their own economy and interets.

Do you find these observations from others to be incorrect?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Singularity

A very fair point, but a) contextually I'd suggest using the term "subsidize" instead of "incentivize" in the above quote, and b) a big problem is that the ~subsidies given to oil/gas are given through the entire economy, such that it's not per se fair to single out oil/gas to not get tax breaks that every other industry is given (e.g. code that allows depreciation over 2 instead of 15 years in the effort to boost the economy). Oil/gas does get their unique tax breaks, but again so do other sectors. So on the one hand I think that oil/gas is treated generally fairly vs other sectors, but the main difference is the economy of scale thing, such that 10% tax break to a gazillion dollar industry isn't the same to the treasury as a 10% tax break to a $5billion/year industry. I agree that oil/gas is too mature to need breaks...but the code is what it is.



Countless resources on this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies
https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...as-tax-breaks/
From the latter website 37bb over 10 years (not including military intervention costs which far exceed these numbers):

Exception to passive loss limitation for working interests in oil and natural gas properties
Location in tax code: 26 U.S.C. § 469(c)(3)
$310 million between 2016 and 2026

Deductions for the costs of drilling wells
Location in tax code: 26 U.S.C. § 263(c)
$13.1 billion between 2016 and 2026

Domestic manufacturing deduction for oil and gas production
Location in tax code: 26 U.S.C. § 199
$10.9 billion between 2016 and 2026

Deductions for the depletion of oil and gas deposits
Location in tax code: 26 U.S.C. § 613A(c)(1)
$12.1 billion between 2016 and 2026

Deductions for the depletion of oil shale deposits
Location in tax code: 26 U.S.C. § 613(b)(2)(B)
$840 million between 2016 and 2026

Deductions for the costs of oil shale exploration and development
Location in tax code: 26 U.S.C. § 617
$768 million between 2016 and 2026

Amortization of geological and geophysical expenditures
Location in tax code: 26 U.S.C. § 167(h)
$1.3 billion between 2016 and 2026

Deductions for tertiary injectants
Location in tax code: 26 U.S.C. § 193
$100 million between 2016 and 2026

Exception to passive loss limitation for working interests in oil and natural gas properties
Location in tax code: 26 U.S.C. § 469(c)(3)
$310 million between 2016 and 2026

Yes, all in the nature of tax deductions which differ little from other industries. Actually, L-E's Forbes article explains this quite well, summarizes the list of tax deductions & credits that you outlined, distinguishes between such tax-related breaks and actual "subsidies" as commonly understood in the world of business, politics & economics, and makes the case that the oil & gas industry "subsidies" that are commonly bandied about are "myths." Here's the link again. Finally, the article states what the top 2 corps. (ExxonMobil & Chevron) together paid in federal taxes, namely $45.2 billion, and how the average rate of tax paid by the overall industry compares to the health care & pharma industries as follows:

"On average, the [oil & gas] industry pays a 45% tax rate when all state, federal, and foreign taxes are totaled up. By comparison the Healthcare Industry pays a total rate of 35% and the Pharmaceuticals pay an estimated rate of 21%. Based upon these numbers it’s hard to believe which business sector is criticized the most for 'subsidies'."

The Forbes article was written in 2016. It's a quick & worthwhile read.

Remember that the NRDC articles -- as do most sources promoting this meme -- specifically discusses "subsidies" & "tax breaks." Forbes cites Dictionary.com in defining subsidies as essentially direct pecuniary sums. But there are none that meet the common defn. according to the two sources you listed as well the list provided by Forbes. As for "tax breaks," I don't understand how they can be treated as "breaks" when every other industry is allowed to avail themselves of what mostly comes down to deductions for business expenses and depreciation for capitalized assets. The entire premise of the meme, after all, is to convince us that the price of fossil fuel based energy is not adequately reflected in its "actual cost" because the industry is being singled out for favorable treatment on account of the industry's "stooges in public office." (from L-E's Rolling Stone article, the publication known for its economic expertise ).

Of course, if you conveniently start using the word "incentive" in lieu of "subsidy" and "tax break," it expands the potential to mislead by another factor. L-E -- the 200 or so lawyers working at the NRDC could really use your skill-set. But thanks for finding us the Forbes article. Prior to that I was genuinely uncertain whether or not this particular meme I've been hearing for years was only partial or complete bulls**t. Now I know.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

But thanks for finding us the Forbes article. Prior to that I was genuinely uncertain whether or not this particular meme I've been hearing for years was only partial or complete bulls**t. Now I know.

The Forbes article - sorry, op-ed from an oil industry exec - while accurate as far as it goes, is the bullsh!t. It completely ignores externalities and excludes tax credits as subsidies. The FF industry pays honking taxes because of the honking profits they generate.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

I think user fees are intended to benefit the user. Carbon tax revenue used as a subsidy for alternative energy is a wealth redistribution scheme.

It's interference in a market which pretty well always leads to tears.

The alternative energy folks argue that the costs of wind and solar are already below that of fossil fuels. That's BS.

The workings of a market are simple. When the renewables industry can deliver power 24 hours per day, 365 days per year at lower costs than the existing then the fossil fuel folks will be unable to compete and go out of business. When electric vehicles are sold at prices competitive with the gas and diesel and provide similar ranges and rapid refills the internal combustion engined vehicles will fall out of use and the auto manufacturers will either change production or go broke.

It's the genius of the market, you want to out compete your competitors you provide your customers with a better or cheaper product.It's a very democratic system, the individual chooses what to buy.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

There's little disagreement that such incentives persist.

There's only "little disagreement" if you choose to define "subsidies" as broadly as the IMF does, and with dubious quantification. That's what happens with agenda-driven sources of information, namely the truth gets skewed.

The fossil fuel industry responds to the world's daily demand for its products, just like any other industry. They're not "incentivized" nor "disincentivized" when meeting that demand. What we're discussing here is simply raising taxes paid by consumers on an indispensable resource for now and the foreseeable future. Yes, maybe it will quell some of those dreaded SUV's you so resent & despise, but it will mainly hurt people in developing countries recently lifted out of poverty.

If you don't agree that we should moderate our usage of fossil fuels, or you believe that we can't for economic or other reasons, then it's understandable that you wouldn't be in favour of any changes.

That's like accusing you of hating poor people because you want to raise their cost of living through higher taxes on the gas they put in their car to go to work. Who, over the age of 15 anyway, talks like this in the midst of an otherwise interesting & worthwhile adult discussion? What I, you, or anyone else personally "wants" is irrelevant. It's not what we may want, but rather what is realistically possible given the consequences.