[afx114]

Lets be honest, the Tea Party fully supports separation of church and state — assuming said church is Muslim, Jewish, basically anything that is not Christian. They’re actually against separation of their church and state. If they were intellectually honest about their church and state arguments they’d be perfectly fine with a Muslim president. I always thought we were asking the wrong question about whether or not Obama is a Muslim. Who cares if he is?

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
– US Constitution Article VI, paragraph 3

So this is really nothing about the separation of some philosophical “church” and state at all. It’s about making Christianity the official religion of the state, which in my opinion flies in the face of the first amendment.

I’d give my left, and probably my right nut to have a fully open atheist president. We’ve had plenty of atheist presidents, they just were unable to “come out” — that would be political suicide. At least JFK had the balls to come out and be honest about his religion.

We already have a definition for government without separation of church and state — theocracy. Why don’t you ask Iran and the Taliban how that’s working out for them?

[afx114]

Lets be honest, the Tea Party fully supports separation of church and state — assuming said church is Muslim, Jewish, basically anything that is not Christian. They’re actually against separation of their church and state. If they were intellectually honest about their church and state arguments they’d be perfectly fine with a Muslim president. I always thought we were asking the wrong question about whether or not Obama is a Muslim. Who cares if he is?

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
– US Constitution Article VI, paragraph 3

So this is really nothing about the separation of some philosophical “church” and state at all. It’s about making Christianity the official religion of the state, which in my opinion flies in the face of the first amendment.

I’d give my left, and probably my right nut to have a fully open atheist president. We’ve had plenty of atheist presidents, they just were unable to “come out” — that would be political suicide. At least JFK had the balls to come out and be honest about his religion.

We already have a definition for government without separation of church and state — theocracy. Why don’t you ask Iran and the Taliban how that’s working out for them?

[afx114]

Lets be honest, the Tea Party fully supports separation of church and state — assuming said church is Muslim, Jewish, basically anything that is not Christian. They’re actually against separation of their church and state. If they were intellectually honest about their church and state arguments they’d be perfectly fine with a Muslim president. I always thought we were asking the wrong question about whether or not Obama is a Muslim. Who cares if he is?

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
– US Constitution Article VI, paragraph 3

So this is really nothing about the separation of some philosophical “church” and state at all. It’s about making Christianity the official religion of the state, which in my opinion flies in the face of the first amendment.

I’d give my left, and probably my right nut to have a fully open atheist president. We’ve had plenty of atheist presidents, they just were unable to “come out” — that would be political suicide. At least JFK had the balls to come out and be honest about his religion.

We already have a definition for government without separation of church and state — theocracy. Why don’t you ask Iran and the Taliban how that’s working out for them?

[afx114]

[quote=no_such_reality]Are you saying we’ll pull the plug on Green subsidies and they’ll be self funding? I doubt it. Subsidy per megawatt for coal is about 50 cents. Today for wind or solar is $20+…[/quote]

No, I’m not saying that at all. What I’m saying is that all energy sectors receive subsidies and have been receiving them for decades. What I’d like to see is an even playing field before we decide which subsidies are worth it and which aren’t. But I’m not deluded enough to think that that will ever happen.

[afx114]

[quote=no_such_reality]Are you saying we’ll pull the plug on Green subsidies and they’ll be self funding? I doubt it. Subsidy per megawatt for coal is about 50 cents. Today for wind or solar is $20+…[/quote]

No, I’m not saying that at all. What I’m saying is that all energy sectors receive subsidies and have been receiving them for decades. What I’d like to see is an even playing field before we decide which subsidies are worth it and which aren’t. But I’m not deluded enough to think that that will ever happen.

[afx114]

[quote=no_such_reality]Are you saying we’ll pull the plug on Green subsidies and they’ll be self funding? I doubt it. Subsidy per megawatt for coal is about 50 cents. Today for wind or solar is $20+…[/quote]

No, I’m not saying that at all. What I’m saying is that all energy sectors receive subsidies and have been receiving them for decades. What I’d like to see is an even playing field before we decide which subsidies are worth it and which aren’t. But I’m not deluded enough to think that that will ever happen.

[afx114]

[quote=no_such_reality]Are you saying we’ll pull the plug on Green subsidies and they’ll be self funding? I doubt it. Subsidy per megawatt for coal is about 50 cents. Today for wind or solar is $20+…[/quote]

No, I’m not saying that at all. What I’m saying is that all energy sectors receive subsidies and have been receiving them for decades. What I’d like to see is an even playing field before we decide which subsidies are worth it and which aren’t. But I’m not deluded enough to think that that will ever happen.

[afx114]

[quote=no_such_reality]Are you saying we’ll pull the plug on Green subsidies and they’ll be self funding? I doubt it. Subsidy per megawatt for coal is about 50 cents. Today for wind or solar is $20+…[/quote]

No, I’m not saying that at all. What I’m saying is that all energy sectors receive subsidies and have been receiving them for decades. What I’d like to see is an even playing field before we decide which subsidies are worth it and which aren’t. But I’m not deluded enough to think that that will ever happen.

[afx114]

The problem here is that there is no set definition for “subsidy.” Does your chart include price supports for growing corn and tax credits for foreign royalties paid by oil and gas companies? The Environmental Law Institutes studies did, and they came up with quite different numbers (and their study spans more years, 2002-2008):

Energy Subsidies Black Not Green (PDF)

They put the values at 72.5 billion for fossil fuels vs 29.0 billion for renewables:

A study released by the Environmental Law Institute, a nonpartisan research and policy organization, shows that the federal government has provided substantially larger subsidies to fossil fuels than to renewables. Subsidies to fossil fuels totaled approximately $72 billion over the seven-year study period, while subsidies for renewable fuels totaled $29 billion over the same period. The vast majority of subsidies support energy sources that emit high levels of greenhouse gases when used as fuel. Moreover, just a handful of tax breaks make up the largest portion of subsidies for fossil fuels, with the most significant of these, the Foreign Tax Credit, supporting the overseas production of oil. More than half of the subsidies for renewables are attributable to corn-based ethanol, the use of which, while decreasing American reliance on foreign oil, has generated concern about climate effects.These figures raise the question of whether scarce government funds might be better allocated to move the United States towards a low-carbon economy.

Also, I don’t think we can compare decades worth of subsidies enjoyed by the fossil fuel sector with current subsidies for renewables. Renewables are in the startup phase, so even if they do currently enjoy more subsidies (which is suspect), it is still a pittance compared to what fossil fuels have received over time. Would renewables pencil better if they were able to enjoy the 40+ years of subsidies enjoyed by non-renewables? I don’t see how you can say no.

I’d also like to see external costs count as subsidies. Perhaps we can call them hidden subsidies? For example, supporting a military to protect our interests in obtaining energy, or the environmental/health costs incurred by energy extraction/refining/transport/etc.

[afx114]

The problem here is that there is no set definition for “subsidy.” Does your chart include price supports for growing corn and tax credits for foreign royalties paid by oil and gas companies? The Environmental Law Institutes studies did, and they came up with quite different numbers (and their study spans more years, 2002-2008):

Energy Subsidies Black Not Green (PDF)

They put the values at 72.5 billion for fossil fuels vs 29.0 billion for renewables:

A study released by the Environmental Law Institute, a nonpartisan research and policy organization, shows that the federal government has provided substantially larger subsidies to fossil fuels than to renewables. Subsidies to fossil fuels totaled approximately $72 billion over the seven-year study period, while subsidies for renewable fuels totaled $29 billion over the same period. The vast majority of subsidies support energy sources that emit high levels of greenhouse gases when used as fuel. Moreover, just a handful of tax breaks make up the largest portion of subsidies for fossil fuels, with the most significant of these, the Foreign Tax Credit, supporting the overseas production of oil. More than half of the subsidies for renewables are attributable to corn-based ethanol, the use of which, while decreasing American reliance on foreign oil, has generated concern about climate effects.These figures raise the question of whether scarce government funds might be better allocated to move the United States towards a low-carbon economy.

Also, I don’t think we can compare decades worth of subsidies enjoyed by the fossil fuel sector with current subsidies for renewables. Renewables are in the startup phase, so even if they do currently enjoy more subsidies (which is suspect), it is still a pittance compared to what fossil fuels have received over time. Would renewables pencil better if they were able to enjoy the 40+ years of subsidies enjoyed by non-renewables? I don’t see how you can say no.

I’d also like to see external costs count as subsidies. Perhaps we can call them hidden subsidies? For example, supporting a military to protect our interests in obtaining energy, or the environmental/health costs incurred by energy extraction/refining/transport/etc.

[afx114]

The problem here is that there is no set definition for “subsidy.” Does your chart include price supports for growing corn and tax credits for foreign royalties paid by oil and gas companies? The Environmental Law Institutes studies did, and they came up with quite different numbers (and their study spans more years, 2002-2008):

Energy Subsidies Black Not Green (PDF)

They put the values at 72.5 billion for fossil fuels vs 29.0 billion for renewables:

A study released by the Environmental Law Institute, a nonpartisan research and policy organization, shows that the federal government has provided substantially larger subsidies to fossil fuels than to renewables. Subsidies to fossil fuels totaled approximately $72 billion over the seven-year study period, while subsidies for renewable fuels totaled $29 billion over the same period. The vast majority of subsidies support energy sources that emit high levels of greenhouse gases when used as fuel. Moreover, just a handful of tax breaks make up the largest portion of subsidies for fossil fuels, with the most significant of these, the Foreign Tax Credit, supporting the overseas production of oil. More than half of the subsidies for renewables are attributable to corn-based ethanol, the use of which, while decreasing American reliance on foreign oil, has generated concern about climate effects.These figures raise the question of whether scarce government funds might be better allocated to move the United States towards a low-carbon economy.

Also, I don’t think we can compare decades worth of subsidies enjoyed by the fossil fuel sector with current subsidies for renewables. Renewables are in the startup phase, so even if they do currently enjoy more subsidies (which is suspect), it is still a pittance compared to what fossil fuels have received over time. Would renewables pencil better if they were able to enjoy the 40+ years of subsidies enjoyed by non-renewables? I don’t see how you can say no.

I’d also like to see external costs count as subsidies. Perhaps we can call them hidden subsidies? For example, supporting a military to protect our interests in obtaining energy, or the environmental/health costs incurred by energy extraction/refining/transport/etc.

[afx114]

The problem here is that there is no set definition for “subsidy.” Does your chart include price supports for growing corn and tax credits for foreign royalties paid by oil and gas companies? The Environmental Law Institutes studies did, and they came up with quite different numbers (and their study spans more years, 2002-2008):

Energy Subsidies Black Not Green (PDF)

They put the values at 72.5 billion for fossil fuels vs 29.0 billion for renewables:

A study released by the Environmental Law Institute, a nonpartisan research and policy organization, shows that the federal government has provided substantially larger subsidies to fossil fuels than to renewables. Subsidies to fossil fuels totaled approximately $72 billion over the seven-year study period, while subsidies for renewable fuels totaled $29 billion over the same period. The vast majority of subsidies support energy sources that emit high levels of greenhouse gases when used as fuel. Moreover, just a handful of tax breaks make up the largest portion of subsidies for fossil fuels, with the most significant of these, the Foreign Tax Credit, supporting the overseas production of oil. More than half of the subsidies for renewables are attributable to corn-based ethanol, the use of which, while decreasing American reliance on foreign oil, has generated concern about climate effects.These figures raise the question of whether scarce government funds might be better allocated to move the United States towards a low-carbon economy.

Also, I don’t think we can compare decades worth of subsidies enjoyed by the fossil fuel sector with current subsidies for renewables. Renewables are in the startup phase, so even if they do currently enjoy more subsidies (which is suspect), it is still a pittance compared to what fossil fuels have received over time. Would renewables pencil better if they were able to enjoy the 40+ years of subsidies enjoyed by non-renewables? I don’t see how you can say no.

I’d also like to see external costs count as subsidies. Perhaps we can call them hidden subsidies? For example, supporting a military to protect our interests in obtaining energy, or the environmental/health costs incurred by energy extraction/refining/transport/etc.

[afx114]

The problem here is that there is no set definition for “subsidy.” Does your chart include price supports for growing corn and tax credits for foreign royalties paid by oil and gas companies? The Environmental Law Institutes studies did, and they came up with quite different numbers (and their study spans more years, 2002-2008):

Energy Subsidies Black Not Green (PDF)

They put the values at 72.5 billion for fossil fuels vs 29.0 billion for renewables:

A study released by the Environmental Law Institute, a nonpartisan research and policy organization, shows that the federal government has provided substantially larger subsidies to fossil fuels than to renewables. Subsidies to fossil fuels totaled approximately $72 billion over the seven-year study period, while subsidies for renewable fuels totaled $29 billion over the same period. The vast majority of subsidies support energy sources that emit high levels of greenhouse gases when used as fuel. Moreover, just a handful of tax breaks make up the largest portion of subsidies for fossil fuels, with the most significant of these, the Foreign Tax Credit, supporting the overseas production of oil. More than half of the subsidies for renewables are attributable to corn-based ethanol, the use of which, while decreasing American reliance on foreign oil, has generated concern about climate effects.These figures raise the question of whether scarce government funds might be better allocated to move the United States towards a low-carbon economy.

Also, I don’t think we can compare decades worth of subsidies enjoyed by the fossil fuel sector with current subsidies for renewables. Renewables are in the startup phase, so even if they do currently enjoy more subsidies (which is suspect), it is still a pittance compared to what fossil fuels have received over time. Would renewables pencil better if they were able to enjoy the 40+ years of subsidies enjoyed by non-renewables? I don’t see how you can say no.

I’d also like to see external costs count as subsidies. Perhaps we can call them hidden subsidies? For example, supporting a military to protect our interests in obtaining energy, or the environmental/health costs incurred by energy extraction/refining/transport/etc.

[afx114]

Wouldn’t renewables pencil better if we removed all of the subsidies that non-renewables have been enjoying for decades? People talk about the “cheapness” of non-renewable energy as if it is inherently cheap. It is not. Yet when someone tries to throw renewables a bone to get the ball rolling everyone cries about the costs despite the incredible costs we’re already paying to make and keep non-renewable energy cheap.

I’d like to see how things pencil on an even playing field. Sure, non-renewables will still come out cheaper, but not at such a level that investment in renewables is seen as an un-sustainable (pun intended) waste.

[afx114]

Wouldn’t renewables pencil better if we removed all of the subsidies that non-renewables have been enjoying for decades? People talk about the “cheapness” of non-renewable energy as if it is inherently cheap. It is not. Yet when someone tries to throw renewables a bone to get the ball rolling everyone cries about the costs despite the incredible costs we’re already paying to make and keep non-renewable energy cheap.

I’d like to see how things pencil on an even playing field. Sure, non-renewables will still come out cheaper, but not at such a level that investment in renewables is seen as an un-sustainable (pun intended) waste.

[Author]

Posts