For instance, I do not consider a tax as a subsidy whereas many do. This is how it works. Industry A is taxed at 40% on their profits while industry B is taxed at 41%. Personally, I don't see any subsidy there but those who notice that industry A is paying one percentage point less in tax than industry B call that a subsidy.
What I would consider a subsidy is when the government decides to give away ￡10 million a year to a new start up company without any strings attached.
Until we can agree on a common definition of a subsidy any discussion is pointless.
I am not the least bit confused as to why the fossil fuel industries receive subsidies, even today. The fossil fuel industries have well funded lobbyists that help to insure that the fossil fuel industries receive favorable legislation and benefits. They spend a large amount of money to try to win elections for candidates that will continue to support the fossil fuel industries. No, I am not the least bit confused about fossil fuel subsidies.
Government subsidies were designed to help new technologies and new businesses until they become profitable and capable of standing on their own. All the fossil fuel industries have long exceeded the amount of support they need to accomplish this. Why the outcry from people when alternative energy sources and companies that help to bring them into viability and profitability when no such outcry is heard about the fossil fuel industries that still shoulder the tax payers with supporting them long after any such financial support is needed for them?
"(As an aside, characterizing the oil companies as “the 1%” is also misleading, because oil companies are overwhelmingly owned by the 99%)" The major oil companies are the wealthiest companies in the world. That puts them ahead of all of the rest of the companies in the world. They are at the top of the 1% and unequaled in wealth. Where do get that the 99% own the oil companies? Exxon has 4.2 million shares outstanding. source: http://www.gurufocus.com/term/Shares+Out...
How many Exxon shares are held by Rex Tillerson? http://www.forbes.com/profile/rex-tiller...
Where is this 99% you came up with?
The subsidies are needed not for the big companies, but for the smaller ones to help them get started.
The subsidies that the fossil fuel industry gets, pales in comparison to what the renewable industry receives, especially wind and solar, without them the renewable companies would go bankrupt (some have even with subsidies)
I understand the need to subsidise renewables, but it has gone way over the top and certainly some of it has been siphoned off to benefit certain corrupt people, these are the people who promote global warming so much.
I think "fossil fuel subsidies", at least as they exist in the US, are not well-understood. Many oil-producing countries directly subsidize oil companies and retail fuel prices, resulting in gas prices of pennies per gallon - clearly a subsidy.
As "Graphicconception" states, the exact definition of what exactly is and is not a "subsidy" is a bit murky, and this leads to disagreement as to how much the American fossil fuel industry really is subsidized. Personally, I don't consider tax deductions that are available to many companies in many industries, to be an industry-specific subsidy. I haven't heard of any reports of oil companies actually getting direct payments from the federal treasury. Plus, both the oil company profits, and the retail sale of the fuel itself, are subject to federal taxation.
So in summary, I question how much American oil companies really are "subsidized". I think the perception of many Americans is not in line with reality in this area.
I agree that we should be looking into alternatives to fossil fuels for a variety of reasons. But that's another topic.
The movement is basically anti farming, anti poor in an attempt to reduce available food supplies and heating for the poor. The overall goal is to reduce the population to under 10 million, which is weird because the earth can easily hold well over 35 Billion.
" ... a failure to understand this is why there is so much outrage over fossil fuel subsidies in the U.S. (As an aside, characterizing the oil companies as “the 1%” is also misleading, because oil companies are overwhelmingly owned by the 99%). During the course of the LinkedIn discussion, a link was provided to Oil Change International, an organization devoted to pushing a transition away from fossil fuels. On their site they have a page on fossil fuel subsidies, which includes a link to a spreadsheet from the OECD breaking down various fossil fuel subsidies. The summary of oil-related subsidies for 2010 totals $4.5 billion. That is a number often thrown out there; $4 billion a year or so in support for those greedy oil companies.
But look at the breakdown. The single largest expenditure is just over $1 billion for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is designed to protect the U.S. from oil shortages. The second largest category is just under $1 billion in tax exemptions for farm fuel. The justification for that tax exemption is that fuel taxes pay for roads, and the farm equipment that benefits from the tax exemption is technically not supposed to be using the roads. The third largest category? $570 million for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. (This program is classified as a petroleum subsidy because it artificially reduces the price of oil). Those three programs account for $2.5 billion a year in “oil subsidies.” ... "
