60 days, 60 stats - #11
Today we're going to talk about Energy policy, because we're all sick of paying $3.50+ at the pump. The statistic for today is a ratio, 5:1. That's the ratio of US government subsidies for the oil & gas industry to those given to renewable energy (solar, wind...) during the first 15 years of each industry. Or, for every $1 we're giving to renewables today, we gave $5 to oil & gas when it was getting started.
Why is this relevant?
1) Romney thinks we're giving too much to renewables, Obama wants to give more.
2) Oil & Gas was a great investment, but they don't need subsidies anymore. Romney wants to continue to subsidize a 100 year old industry that's making record profits, Obama wants to end those subsidies.
A little history & context is important here. Basically, the US has subsidized "startup" energy industries for over 200 years. These subsidies come in all forms (tax breaks, R&D incentives, direct government assistance with projects...). We subsidized the timber industry in the 1800s, then coal, then oil & gas, then nuclear, and today we subsidize solar & wind energy (which are still "new"). We subsidized these industries to promote their growth, specifically domestic production and mainstream acceptance/usage. It worked, especially with oil & gas. We all use those products today, and we've got a massive O&G industry that supports millions of jobs. Now let's look at the support we've given a few of these industries over the years:
Take a moment and ask yourself "If I were President, and we were having a budget crisis, which of these subsidies should I eliminate?" Romney thinks the oil & gas (O&G) subsidies should stay, and we should kill the "renewables" bar on the far right. Keep supporting a 100 year old industry that doesn't need the help, stop supporting a fledgling industry where the US has the chance to be a world leader (and green, and energy independent). The GOP says Uncle Sam "shouldn't pick winners and losers," yet they see no disparity between the gray bar on this chart and the green one. I just don't see how that's possible.
My premise is this: we should stop subsidizing the oil companies and start subsidizing renewable energy sources. This represents a departure for me. Until I researched this particular post, I was opposed to all subsidies. Then I read the history of US energy subsidies, particularly the benefits we have gained from helping "new" energy sources reach mainstream adoption, and the data is overwhelming. Specifically, without subsidies, many of these industries might not exist today. The oil industry's days are numbered; by rights it should not last another 100 years. Let's invest in the next big thing, because history tells us we get good payback on these deals.
Why is this relevant?
1) Romney thinks we're giving too much to renewables, Obama wants to give more.
2) Oil & Gas was a great investment, but they don't need subsidies anymore. Romney wants to continue to subsidize a 100 year old industry that's making record profits, Obama wants to end those subsidies.
A little history & context is important here. Basically, the US has subsidized "startup" energy industries for over 200 years. These subsidies come in all forms (tax breaks, R&D incentives, direct government assistance with projects...). We subsidized the timber industry in the 1800s, then coal, then oil & gas, then nuclear, and today we subsidize solar & wind energy (which are still "new"). We subsidized these industries to promote their growth, specifically domestic production and mainstream acceptance/usage. It worked, especially with oil & gas. We all use those products today, and we've got a massive O&G industry that supports millions of jobs. Now let's look at the support we've given a few of these industries over the years:
Take a moment and ask yourself "If I were President, and we were having a budget crisis, which of these subsidies should I eliminate?" Romney thinks the oil & gas (O&G) subsidies should stay, and we should kill the "renewables" bar on the far right. Keep supporting a 100 year old industry that doesn't need the help, stop supporting a fledgling industry where the US has the chance to be a world leader (and green, and energy independent). The GOP says Uncle Sam "shouldn't pick winners and losers," yet they see no disparity between the gray bar on this chart and the green one. I just don't see how that's possible.
My premise is this: we should stop subsidizing the oil companies and start subsidizing renewable energy sources. This represents a departure for me. Until I researched this particular post, I was opposed to all subsidies. Then I read the history of US energy subsidies, particularly the benefits we have gained from helping "new" energy sources reach mainstream adoption, and the data is overwhelming. Specifically, without subsidies, many of these industries might not exist today. The oil industry's days are numbered; by rights it should not last another 100 years. Let's invest in the next big thing, because history tells us we get good payback on these deals.
Comments
Post a Comment