Saturday, March 17, 2012

Good energy question - Tina Korbe asks why we don't just end government subsidies on all energy sources, instead of beating up on "big oil" all the time?  After all, we haven't exactly been getting a good return on investment at the renewable companies.


Anonymous said...

Yes, because an entrenched, wildly profitable energy source is exactly the same as a growing or prospective energy source. They both include the word "energy"!

What is the purpose of a subsidy? Hypothetically, of course.

Anonymous said...

It's entrenched and profitable because it works.

Eric said...

First of all, the "subsidies" that Obama are talking about involve all the tax write-offs offered to EVERY industry. The petroleum industry has very large equipment depreciation costs compared to, say, Solyndra.

For the record, I'm all for eliminating these "subsidies" if it means we stop underwriting the Chevy Volt, Tesla, EnR1, and Evergreen. We've been tilting at windmills since the Carter administration: when are renewables going to grow or be prospective?

Finally, Obama's been making this same political call-to-arms since inauguration day and he couldn't eliminate oil subsidies when he had a filibuster-proof Congress. This is all another election-day speech.

Anonymous said...

"We've been tilting at windmills"

I see what you did there.