Comments on: The Subsidy Tease — Part I http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/13/clean-and-dirty-energy-subsidies/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:59:28 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Charles Barton http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/13/clean-and-dirty-energy-subsidies/#comment-8650 Charles Barton Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:02:33 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/13/clean-and-dirty-energy-subsidies/#comment-8650 Some people seem to think that not all subsidies are created equal. For example, greens hold that subsidies for "renewables" are good, but subsidies for nuclear power are very bad. Both renewables and nuclear power do not emit CO2, and thus can be a part of a global warming solution. Some people seem to think that not all subsidies are created equal. For example, greens hold that subsidies for “renewables” are good, but subsidies for nuclear power are very bad. Both renewables and nuclear power do not emit CO2, and thus can be a part of a global warming solution.

]]> By: bill becker http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/13/clean-and-dirty-energy-subsidies/#comment-8634 bill becker Wed, 13 Feb 2008 23:09:50 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/13/clean-and-dirty-energy-subsidies/#comment-8634 Yes, $50 billion is the correct amount for fossil fuel subsidies in 2006. Sorry for the slip, and thanks for the correction. Yes, $50 billion is the correct amount for fossil fuel subsidies in 2006. Sorry for the slip, and thanks for the correction.

]]> By: Anonymous http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/13/clean-and-dirty-energy-subsidies/#comment-8627 Anonymous Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:18:30 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/13/clean-and-dirty-energy-subsidies/#comment-8627 "...federal energy subsidies totaled nearly $50 million for fossil fuels in 2006, ..." "_b_illion...", surely? Reminds me of the phrase "back when a million dollars/pounds was a lot of money". “…federal energy subsidies totaled nearly $50 million for fossil fuels in 2006, …”

“_b_illion…”, surely?

Reminds me of the phrase “back when a million dollars/pounds was a lot of money”.

]]> By: Paul K http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/13/clean-and-dirty-energy-subsidies/#comment-8622 Paul K Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:16:09 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/13/clean-and-dirty-energy-subsidies/#comment-8622 How odd. The Production Tax Credit has been enacted and renewed by Congresses and Presidents of both parties. I suspect the three lapses were due to institutional torpor rather than opposition to the policy. What is actually involved in making sure the congress renews PTC before it expires? Does it have to be part of a larger bill? Is there a particular subcommittee in either house that has responsibility? Where can we get details about the subsidies? How much are they? Who has taken advantage of them? What have they actually accomplished? What are the additional side benefits of the policy? What can be done to make PTC permanent? How odd. The Production Tax Credit has been enacted and renewed by Congresses and Presidents of both parties. I suspect the three lapses were due to institutional torpor rather than opposition to the policy. What is actually involved in making sure the congress renews PTC before it expires? Does it have to be part of a larger bill? Is there a particular subcommittee in either house that has responsibility? Where can we get details about the subsidies? How much are they? Who has taken advantage of them? What have they actually accomplished? What are the additional side benefits of the policy? What can be done to make PTC permanent?

]]> By: Earl Killian http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/13/clean-and-dirty-energy-subsidies/#comment-8620 Earl Killian Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:26:03 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/13/clean-and-dirty-energy-subsidies/#comment-8620 Imagine an inverted Exhibit 2 in the Earth Track reference you cite. 66% of the $49 to $100 billion going to conservation would increase the supply of all of the others (relative to demand) far more than the money they are getting today. Imagine an inverted Exhibit 2 in the Earth Track reference you cite. 66% of the $49 to $100 billion going to conservation would increase the supply of all of the others (relative to demand) far more than the money they are getting today.

]]> By: Ronald http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/13/clean-and-dirty-energy-subsidies/#comment-8617 Ronald Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:29:45 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/13/clean-and-dirty-energy-subsidies/#comment-8617 It’s good to identify the players in only having the production tax credit (PTC) for such short lengths. The republicans played it well, getting credit for having the PTC when they were in control of congress and now when the democrats are in control it is used as a bargaining chip. Republicans were not going to sign on to the PTC if there was a role back of the fossil fuel tax reductions republicans gave the fossil fuel companies in 2005. Not having the PTC would have angered the democratic base (what, we have a PTC when the republicans are in power, we don’t have it when the democrats are in power?) and allowed them to use it as a bargaining chip to save the fossil fuel tax reductions. Tax philosophically, I’m for a reduction of sales, property and income and trade those tax reductions for a carbon tax. The government doesn’t start with a pile of money so it can then give tax breaks where it thinks it might be needed. Every tax break had to have had money come in from something else first. Simplify the whole government tax game by not reducing taxes on what you may want to subsidize, but tax first that which you may what to reduced usage of. Yah, I know, it’s not as easy as all that. Doing it is another matter. It’s good to identify the players in only having the production tax credit (PTC) for such short lengths. The republicans played it well, getting credit for having the PTC when they were in control of congress and now when the democrats are in control it is used as a bargaining chip. Republicans were not going to sign on to the PTC if there was a role back of the fossil fuel tax reductions republicans gave the fossil fuel companies in 2005. Not having the PTC would have angered the democratic base (what, we have a PTC when the republicans are in power, we don’t have it when the democrats are in power?) and allowed them to use it as a bargaining chip to save the fossil fuel tax reductions.

Tax philosophically, I’m for a reduction of sales, property and income and trade those tax reductions for a carbon tax. The government doesn’t start with a pile of money so it can then give tax breaks where it thinks it might be needed. Every tax break had to have had money come in from something else first. Simplify the whole government tax game by not reducing taxes on what you may want to subsidize, but tax first that which you may what to reduced usage of.

Yah, I know, it’s not as easy as all that. Doing it is another matter.

]]>