3 thoughts on “Obama’s 2013 budget cuts fossil fuel subsidies”
The Keystone Pipeline was never “stopped”. The project must follow the same environmental review as any other project of that scale. Just look at the Gulf if you need to see how oil tainted water effects an economy. Could we agree in retrospect that Gulf oil prodcution was a farily “inefficient” method of energy production?
We dont need to hand out susidies for renewable or fossil fuel companies (and many of the latter are becoming the former). However, to eliminate the externalities generated from fossil fuels, subsidies for renewables are much more justified. They just need to be tax breaks at the consumer level. Call me a hippie, but I’d rather “drink the Kool-Aid” than breath in mercury for the rest of my life. You will never be truely independent until you live off the grid, and American innovation has made it possible.
Let’s be fair, and whack $4 billion from the EPA budget.
I’m waiting to see what they call “inefficient” and “subsidy.” Call me skeptical, but if you’re looking to actually do the things you say you want to do (energy independence, all of the above approach, and help the nation’s economy at the same time), what do you call the bankrupt Solyndra and stopping the Keystone Pipeline? How does one get any less efficient in the case of a subsidized bankruptcy and any more efficient than a zero subsidy success. Supporting the one and killing the other seems like lose-lose to any non Kool-Aid drinker.
Leave a Reply
Discover more from JunkScience.com
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
The Keystone Pipeline was never “stopped”. The project must follow the same environmental review as any other project of that scale. Just look at the Gulf if you need to see how oil tainted water effects an economy. Could we agree in retrospect that Gulf oil prodcution was a farily “inefficient” method of energy production?
We dont need to hand out susidies for renewable or fossil fuel companies (and many of the latter are becoming the former). However, to eliminate the externalities generated from fossil fuels, subsidies for renewables are much more justified. They just need to be tax breaks at the consumer level. Call me a hippie, but I’d rather “drink the Kool-Aid” than breath in mercury for the rest of my life. You will never be truely independent until you live off the grid, and American innovation has made it possible.
Let’s be fair, and whack $4 billion from the EPA budget.
I’m waiting to see what they call “inefficient” and “subsidy.” Call me skeptical, but if you’re looking to actually do the things you say you want to do (energy independence, all of the above approach, and help the nation’s economy at the same time), what do you call the bankrupt Solyndra and stopping the Keystone Pipeline? How does one get any less efficient in the case of a subsidized bankruptcy and any more efficient than a zero subsidy success. Supporting the one and killing the other seems like lose-lose to any non Kool-Aid drinker.