Between 2002 and 2008, the federal government granted $72.5 billion in subsidies to fossil fuels. Meanwhile, renewable energy subsidies totaled only $29 billion. This underscores the unsettling fact that oil, gas and coal companies continue to benefit from handouts and tax breaks, largely at the expense of American taxpayers. As peak oil nears, and as fossil fuel prices rise, subsidies will continue to be in large demand by the polluting industries that need them most. The key is reducing and eventually eliminating those subsidies to enable clean energy to compete in the market.
Jake Schmidt, international climate policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, believes that any fossil fuel subsidies will continue to harm the economy. "Given that we're talking about deep emissions cuts across the world, we can't have investments in clean energy competing against investments in fossil fuels that are going in the wrong direction." Not only should fossil fuel subsidies be entirely phased out, I believe that carbon taxes and cap-and-trade programs should be strengthened to allow for a smoother transition into a clean energy economy.
Reducing fossil fuel emissions to avert a looming climate disaster is both a moral and environmental challenge. A smart federal agenda moving forward should treat clean energy both as an asset and as an opportunity to drive innovation and new investment broadly across the U.S. economy. We can create millions of jobs, revive our energy sector, and become competitors in the rapidly expanding global clean energy market simply by cutting ties with trite subsidies, and redirecting them toward green technologies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that we should move away from fossil fuels and put more investment into clean energy, and although it will create more jobs, many people in the fossil fuel industry will lose their jobs. I feel that it will also cost more to train people for these new clean jobs. Do you think fossil fuel industry workers will be reluctant to move to cleaner jobs and away from the fossil fuel industry?
ReplyDeleteI agree Daniel moving towards carbon taxes is a great idea. What specific steps do you think our government needs to take to move this way? I like your ideas on a clean energy agenda. What types of clean energy do you expect to be the best for our economic development while being environmentally conscience? I think that a move to a state controlled carbon tax would be a really good way to develop an environmental state of mind. Also I believe creating a market for solar energy would be beneficial to our environment. Though this could create an economic problem since solar energy is initially very expensive. Just wondering your opinion on what kind of clean energy would be good for the US.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your blog Daniel. It's discouraging reading numbers such as the ones your present, $72.5 billion in subsidies for fossil fuels and only $29 billion going towards subsidies for renewable energies. I believe our government needs to take a more active role in considering a clean energy agenda, just as you mentioned, and focus a lot more in the environmental sector. What do you think it is going to take for someone in a current major leadership position to take action? Do you think hat many of the current environmental problems will be too far gone, by the time we get the ball rolling with renewable energies?
ReplyDeleteKirsten Dobson
Kristen, good question. Yeah I do think that "fossil fuel workers" will be reluctant to accept the reality that coal and other nonrenewable energy sources are going to become less popular as the 21st century moves along. However, they have to realize that their work is putting the planet, and all of its inhabitants, in danger. Once renewable energy sources are implemented, which will surely take some time, "fossil fuel workers" will have to face reality: either use their skills to help the planet transition into a sustainable future or continue fighting a selfish battle to save their polluting industry.
ReplyDeleteKirsten, first I will address your second question. I believe that current environmental problems will only get worse if the government does not place stronger market and command-and-control sanctions on nonrenewable energy industries. In regards to your first question, the Obama Administration is trying to take action. However, many coal and oil interest groups, and those who have longstanding ties to those industries in Congress, are forcing the Administration to accept a less aggressive approach to phasing in renewable energy systems. I believe that the government needs to be more future-oriented, forget about the selfish cries by the nonrenewable sector, and follow Europe's more aggressive private and public sector approach to invest more money into wind, solar, and geothermal energy sources.
ReplyDeleteAndrea, I believe that wind and solar lead the way as having the most potential right now. In fact, I read an article that wind is the fastest growing renewable energy extraction method in the U.S. The federal and state governments need to become more proactive indeed. By imposing a scaled emissions tax on coal, oil, and gas (for example, a 10% tax, then a 20% tax 5 years later, and so on), the economy will more rapidly transition away form such polluting energy sources. Also, I believe that the government should become more active internationally, working with other developed and developing countries to help our entire planet become more sustainable in the future. Emissions are not a U.S. problem; they are a global problem.
ReplyDeleteI like your post because it draws attention to a problem that most Americans do not know is occurring. Most people believe that fossil fuels are cheap and thus we should keep consuming them rather than paying more for clean alternatives. If alternative energy such as wind and solar were given the same subsidies it would make them more affordable and competitive on the market. One problem I have especially with subsidies is that not only do these companies get money from the government, but their products are artificially cheap because they do not account for the environmental degradation. Fossil fuels such as coal do not factor in the price of mining, shipping, converting to electricity, and dealing with all the waste products into the price of coal powered electricity.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Lester R Brown's Book Plan B 3.0 the current real cost of a gallon of gas is over 15dollars. the fact that we are subsidizing our own demise this much calls into question the ethics we are running in this country. the current tax we put on gas is a little less then 40cents, we should be taxing gasoline use much higher, high enough to the point that people will actually stop using it as much. by a balance of high taxes on gas and lowered income tax incentives we could really diminish the use of gasoline in this country.
ReplyDelete