Everyone's favorite boogieman...the oil industry. According to Forbes, Oil Subsidies amount to $4.5 Billion. Shall we take a look at what some of those "subsidies" are?

Oil Subsidies:
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program - $570 Million
Strategic Petroleum Reserve - just over $1 Billion
Tax Exemptions on Farm Fuel - just under $1 Billion

$2.5 Billion in incidental Oil Subsidies. Incidental in that the subsidies incidentally get charged against the oil industry.

The largest oil subsidy? A manufacturers subsidy worth $1.7 Billion. The kicker? Apple, Inc. takes that subsidy for 9%, ExxonMobil is only allowed 6%.

What total are we at now? $4.2 Billion.

http://www.forbes.com/...-even-liberals-love-them/


Oh, but Oil Companies have big scary profit numbers! Not quite, the number that matters to investors (profit margin) is quite low for oil companies. Between 2006 and 2010, oil companies averaged just 6.5% profit margin. The pharmaceutical companies averaged 16%.

Huge expenses mean one of two things, either huge revenues or bankruptcy. The numbers are huge because the expenses to generate those revenues and profits are huge.

Still don't like the profits of oil companies? I'm sure that the 71% of their shareholders comprising IRAs, Mutual Funds, and Public Pension Funds would disagree with you. What does that mean? Means that the oil company profits are mostly profits and benefits for ordinary Americans.

http://www.forbes.com/...oil-company-earnings.html

err the point about the oil industry is more that you shouldn't be encouraging polluting industries by subsidising it more than clean energy.

it's the mad fat cow people sitting at the drive thru windows that are doing the polluting. the oil companies are just making a product that they use.

i predict this thread will blow up today

Nobody outside of the USA is interested

it was on BBC News. i can tell because i have to go there to get US news that doesn't lock up my browser with advertisements.

1. Get a computer that wasn't built in the early 90s (or late 90s, for that matter).

2. Use Firefox with ad-block plus.

dude, i have alienware. stuff it. why i need more than MS spying on me? ahh, the open source people are blowing in the wind and need some company to keep them warm at night.

Here is a list of some of subsidies/tax-breaks that need to go:

http://www.americanprogress.org/...s-misbegotten-tax-gusher/



Also listing IRA's and Mutual funds as a reason to keep them is a red herring. Just because someone makes money off of the enterprise doesn't mean it should stick around. We ought to keep slavery around because it was so profitable to the south.

lol @ dibs buying an alienware

it got rid of my nightmares where they forgot to pick me up before the planet imploded.

might be a tad bit epensive, but it's a decent computer that i won't have to worry about.

"bad tough Republicans love picking on the weak and would rather court richer donors."

This point I believe is that the oil industry is somehow getting special treatment by Republicans. The real truth is that the Democrats also won't go after oil-industry subsidies because those "subisidies" are going to help poor Americans pay for energy, helping to protect our national interest, helping keep food prices lower, and is helping keep jobs in the US. All that totals $4.2 Billion in oil subisidies on $4.5 Billion in 2010. Take out the jobs part of that and it still amounts to $2.5 Billion on Security, Food, and low income home energy assistance.


The point is that clean energy can't provide immediate strategic fuel security, clean energy can't provide immediate farm fuel, and can't immediately provide for the energy needs of low income Americans.

Furthermore, the oil industry is already not entitled to take as much as other industries on a manufacturing tax credit.


I'm sorry, you weren't implying at all that rich people are the people that own the oil companies. My mistake, I just thought it would be wise to point out that ordinary Americans own 71% of the oil companies. Again, very sorry for this mistake. You're absolutely right, just because a lot of people make money off of oil companies isn't a reason to keep them around, but it's also a different argument than the one I thought we were having (trully sorry about that mistake). My whole point in this is that most oil industry subsidies just incidentally benefit them, that oil companies don't make as much as similarly sized pharmaceutical companies (and others) would make, and that the profits they do make go to benefit a lot of ordinary Americans.

You can debate all you want about subsidies like that.
But guys, your country runs government deficits well in excess of a trillion dollars a year. Im not even talking about household debt or the trade deficit and so on.

And frankly I didn't hear Obama nor Romney debating the changes that need to be made to realistically be able to address this issue. Your healthcare system for example costs twice as much as in some other western nations. And that's not just it, they also provide better quality care and it's accessible for everyone.

But all I heard from Obama and Romney is how the US is the greatest nation on Earth and some rhetoric about improving finances but without actually speficially discussing how to do it. Where would they get 1 trillion a year from? How are they going to revive exports in the country? Etc..

won't indulge the political piranhas ...


BUT, to KJ - bakku is g0su and has never cheated, never been accused of cheating, etc etc etc. watch your mouth

lol

I think Senator Palpatine is bad for the Republic
... and Paul Ryan is handsome.

That is all, now I get my bonus points for posting.

... ... oh yeah... and SOL is ranked too high! ;)

And they also can't forget the uneducated vote. Need to somehow dumb down the way they explain issues in this country. Have to reach out to all the high school/college burnouts if you want elected these days. According to the AP results, just the people that don't have GED's would have been enough to change the results of the popular vote.

Must suck to be Republican right now. Obama's even better at this whole anti-terrorism thing than Bush ever was!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/...obama-terrorism-kill-list

Yeah, um killing your potential uncooperative witnesses/suspects is not always the best way to counter terrorism. Counter-terrorism operations are unique in that they're part criminal prosecution operations and part military assault operations. Both are critical and I believe that the Bush administration maintained a good distinction between the two in terms of when a terrorist operator transisitioned from a matter of possibly being prosecuted to a matter of being too dangerous to live. At what point does someone become so dangerous that the risks of letting them live outweigh the potential benefits of capturing them alive (including intelligence and the preservation of the rule of law and of due process)? That standard should be set very high in democratic societies. The Bush administration always preferred to capture terrorists rather than kill them, for the intelligence value (if nothing else).

I question Obama's strategy here, not his intent. I believe that he intends to keep America safe from threats as he sees them. I just don't think that this is sound strategy long term. A dead terrorist tells you nothing.

I'd like to address the concerns about oil companies. I realize that I would have voted for Obama and am generally considered a lefty by everyone on this board... but I'm also a pragmatist. If you're against oil subsidaries to farmers AND construction companies I might add, then you are really shooting North American economies in the foot.

The technology for green energy heavy equipment (farm equipment, excavators, front end loaders, skid steers, etc) simply does not exist. In potash mines, the miner is generally powered by electricity (because fumes underground are bad)... but we can't exactly run a power cord to a farm combine or other construction equipment.

I know for a fact that a 600 to 850 Hitachi excavator digging for 10 hours straight will burn about 600 litres of diesel (about 158 american gallons). That fuel powers growth in infrastructure and transportation. How many years away do you think we are to develop a battery powered semi truck that can drive for 12 hours on one charge? How about doing it all in -40 degree weather? (Celcius or Fahrenheit, take your pick).

First we need the technology to replace oil before we can fill that vacuum. I think it'd be good if we did all these things... but we havent yet. The first person who does will be a gazillionaire. GO!

Romney done well,it's really hard to unseat an incumbent Prez.At least in 4 years we won't have to put up with Obama,unless of course he becomes King.

Why do Republicans feel that they MUST believe everything the Republican party believes, and MUST vote for whatever candidate Republicans field? Same goes for Democrats. The whole polarisation just seems so silly to me. Obama is villainized by Republicans simply because he's a Democrat. It's just crazy - do Republicans and Democrats actually know WHY they hate the other side? Do Republicans who bash on Obama know WHY they are bashing on him, or do they just bash on him because they're Republicans and that's what they're supposed to do?

This partisanship in America really makes me sick.

That's not entirely accurate, if the rep and dem were more in the middle that'd be one thing, but Obama is far left so yeah...

Hey it's ok can we expect another record breaking spending spree by Mr. Obama? You bet your ass!

How so? The agricultural sector is 1.2% of the US economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/...by_GDP_sector_composition); Industrialized farms are slowly killing off small farmers, because food they make is so ridiculously cheap; we make so much food we have to export most of it.



Horses! (not 100% serious, but they *are* much more efficient than heavy equipment from an energy input point of view)



Growth has to slow, and even equilibrate; constant growth is not actually something that's desirable; even on sub-century time scales, 1-3% growth does more than people really realize.



We could do that now, if you're willing to have a large battery; it would not be economical however, in any way shape or form.



Having worked on renewable energy research (hydrogen storage specifically), and having read what I have, I would tend to say we will never find a direct replacement for oil; rather adapting back to some more traditionally efficient methods of transportation (trains!) is more likely. Light vehicles (bicycles?) in cities (or subways/trains), and trains elsewheres, would be what I'd tend to see us reverting towards as we run out of oil...

There's no denying that for personal transportation (the bulk of fuel consumption), a new energy source needs to be established to replace gasoline and diesel on the roads. For trains, farm equipment, semis, all heavy duty construction equipment, and probably even 1 ton pickup trucks... they will likely always need diesel. Anything with a gasoline engine, on the other hand, can probably be replaced (in a general sense).

As for using horses to dig trenches 20 metres deep... good luck with that.

heh what sort of farms require 20m deep trenches...?

If you look at Germany they use less than half of the oil per capita than the US. It's a wealthy nation with a strong economy and the Autobahn which is filled with BMWs, Mercedes, Porches etc regularly going 125mph+.
Europeans have $10/gallon gas but they don't actually spend more on gas since they drive more economical cars and have shorter commutes. If the same was done in the US the gains would be huge.
But people will have to be willing to trade in their SUVs and pickup trucks for a diesel powered stationwagon. It wouldn't be a big sacrifice.

The same Germany is well on its way to get 30% of its electricity from renewables in 2020. Is this hurting their economy? No, it's a new booming industry providing many new jobs and opening up new export possibilities. The sacrifice for now are somewhat higher electricity prices, but those also work as an incentive for manufacturers to make their products more efficient.

etc etc
It aren't the excavators I'd look at.

Also, trains don't need diesel. They can run perfectly fine on electricity. Where I live, in Holland, 50% of commuters between the largest cities take the train.
A whopping 25% of commuters in the country use their bicycle.

If I'm saying 20m deep trenches, I'm clearly not talking about farming. I'm talking about pipelaying.

As for trains, im not talking about passenger trains. In Canada, passenger trains don't really get used very often over long distances (just in the major cities). I know Europe uses a lot of passenger trains, but North America is very large.

Cargo trains, on the other hand, use diesel... at least in Canada.

While I sympathize with the need for more effective public transportation in the US, you cannot look at the US as being like Europe in anyway with regard to our transportation systems and commuting habits. The population densities are just not similar at all.

Some facts according to Wikipedia (yeah, yeah, not the best source, but this isn't a college essay either).

Population Density of the Netherlands: 405/square kilometer (1049/square mile)

Population Density of Nashville, TN (state capital): 460/square kilometer (1200/square mile)

Population Density of Tennessee: 60/square kilometer (154/square mile)

Population Density of the United States: 34/square kilometer (88/square mile)

Population Density of the contiguous United States: 40/square kilometer (104/square mile)


These are hugely important numbers to overcome in the United States. Yes, a lot of cities can and should do better on public transportation services. However, it would be absurd to think that rural Americans are going to ride their bikes to work when work can be several miles away. I'd say more, but I think these numbers speak for themselves.

:)

hmmm. 25 mile bike ride for me. rush hour had my car doing around 25 mph. meh. if they're going to be living rurally, then they should be farming instead of commuting anyway, so why should i take the time to think about this?

run perfectly fine on electricity? are you stating that it's more efficient? it does give people the option of keeping the pollution away from the cities, but how much more fuel needs to be burned for the same amount of mechanical energy to be created?

"if they're going to be living rurally, then they should be farming instead of commuting anyway"?

are you kidding?

nope. i'm always 100% serious. why? do i look like a goat?

Theoretically, electrically driven trains are much, much more efficient. A diesel locomotive will only convert about 40% of the energy into actual kinetic energy. But for electric locomotives it also depends on the losses that occur during the production and transport of electricity so it isn't a simple answer.
I think generally speaking electrifying railroads requires a large capital investment but reduces running/maintenance costs in the long term.

I know density of population is different in the US. I'm not saying the US should have 25% (or up to 50% in cities) of the population commuting by bicycle. But right now it's about 1%? That could certainly improve, 10% would be a nice goal. If you build the proper infrastructure for cyclists so that they don't get in the way of car drivers and feel safe they'll start cycling on their own. No need to force them or impede any freedoms. Just a very simple and cheap way to reduce transportation costs and dependence on foreign oil.

And about people living rurally, well that's a debate you should have. Do you want many people living there while they have to commute to the cities? You don't have to kick them out of their houses, but hey there are plenty of young people in the US that would like to live in more urban environments. Go ahead, start building those apartments.

Or at least, start discussing these issues because currently the political debate in the US is a joke.

Political debate in the US IS a joke, i couldn't agree more. StewColbsMaherFox all make a lot of money at how hilarious it all is.