I can’t avoid it since it involves both reducing subsidies on oil and gas subsidies and improving infrastructure…
Giannoulias’ National Infrastructure Fund would establish an independent board comprised of urban planners, economists, engineers, geologists and other experts in the field. This board would prioritize the nation’s large-scale infrastructure needs based on their national and regional economic benefits. The highest ranked project would receive funding through direct federal grants, loan guarantees and private sector matching funds.
To avoid future reckless earmark projects like the “Bridge to Nowhere,” the Fund would essentially strip politics out of the decision-making process. While Congress would continue to allocate the funds, the selection of projects would be made by the independent board, which would assess each project strictly on its merits, and rank the proposals based on their efficiency and economic benefit.
Giannoulias’ proposal is deficit-neutral and would be funded by cutting the tax breaks for big oil companies, which would make $45 billion available over the next decade. Instead of benefiting a few oil companies that already enjoy billions of dollars in annual profit, this taxpayer money will benefit the entire nation by connecting transit systems, updating the nation’s electric grid, streamlining freight rail lines, and repairing roads and bridges.
To give you some sense of the mix on energy subsidies the graphic at this site does a decent job. I would actually look at the graph different than it is broken down looking at Fossil fuels and Corn/Ethanol together as they produce carbon dioxide while the Capture and Sequester and traditional renewables are far better for mitigating climate change. This eliminates nuclear as a separate issue which I think is a good way of handling it since nuclear is good on climate, but we don’t have a suitable method for waste storage. The results of the graph though: $87 billion for carbon dioxide producing energy sources to $14.5 Billion for climate neutral energy sources over 2002 to 2008. Even if you exclude ethanol you still have $70 billion in subsidies for traditional fossil fuels. The question being is for what possible reason do we need to subsidize oil and gas production and even with coal why it needs a subsidy if the argument is that it’s cheap is its selling point?
Oil and gas companies are immensely profitable and yet still receive government support while infrastructure in the United States suffers.
There’s still all that nuclear waste that was supposed to go to Yucca Mountain but now it’s just sitting out there all around the country collecting really sparkly shiny kinda-has-a-glow-to-it dust
I vote to bury all that existing nuclear waste and any new radioactive waste in Tom Coburn’s backyard — He’s all in favor of using even more of taxpayer dollars for corporate welfare to the profitable radioactive energy industry so it seems like a good compromise
Corn/Ethanol is carbon neutral in global warming theory. Burning Corn/Ethanol does produce CO2 but growing corn sucks the carbon out of the atmosphere.
I have no love for oil companies, but that site you linked to was a little light on documentation. What exactly do they mean by “tax breaks” and “direct spending”? Is it possible that hydrocarbons have big numbers simply because they’re big business? Their sales numbers dwarf those of all other sectors combined. If we each get a 5% tax break but you make 10 times my salary, your tax break in dollars is going to be a lot bigger than mine.
I should have said “fossil fuels” instead of “hydrocarbons” above.
===Corn/Ethanol is carbon neutral in global warming theory. Burning Corn/Ethanol does produce CO2 but growing corn sucks the carbon out of the atmosphere.
Mike, it’s simply not true. By the time you plant, harvest and process corn ethanol it’s not only not carbon neutral, but it’s energy negative. It’s a complete waste. Some other forms of ethanol may turn out to be energy neutral or positive and possibly even not as bad for carbon dioxide emissions, but nothing has reached that point yet.
It’s not a dissertation, but it’s relatively representative. That said, you ask a key point. The size issue matters in some respects because some energy tax breaks go to larger producers, but it isn’t a tax break that any company could get–it’s energy targeted tax breaks in this case. So in one sense, your point is correct in that it’s their size–though it’s not just because they are large companies, but because they are large energy companies.
But, those large energy companies aren’t getting subsidies of any significant size up until probably this tax year if I’m correct on the start date of some of the new energy tax policies in the above. They are getting subsidies for dirty energy sources.
“Mike, it’s simply not true.”
I hope you’re not saying that the carbon in ethanol does not come from the atmosphere.
I agree that the methods of production currently in use whereby fossil fuels play a large part detracts from any benefits, I can’t agree that corn/ethanol should be lumped together with fossil fuels.
“… it’s energy negative. It’s a complete waste.”
The literature I’m familiar with is not very convincing either way on this point. Are you able to cite a source that I may consult?
Thanks. Keep up the good work
==I hope you’re not saying that the carbon in ethanol does not come from the atmosphere.
No, we agree there.
Let me check my sources and I’ll add them here or send them by e-mail (may be a day or so–damn day job). (your e-mail only shows up to me)