A Rational Look at the "Settled Science"

[On Guard for Thee]

There is a huge difference between being able to show that something can be done and deploying it at a massive scale. Most of the non-CO2 emitting technologies cannot be deployed at the scale required to make a difference. There is no conspiracy - the problem is often basic physics that limits the usefulness of alternatives.

We deployed fossil fuels on a massive scale didn't we. The naysayers tend to get comfortable and suggest we can't ever do something as massive again. That shortsightedness is always a factor but hopefully we can once again overcome it before we do irreperable harm to the plce we need to keep us alive.

[TimG]

We deployed fossil fuels on a massive scale didn't we.

The fossil fuel infrastructure was built largely with private money driven purely by economics (the government did not pay people to build gas stations or to buy ICE cars). There are no technologies today that can economically replace what fossil fuels provide (in many cases, it is physically impossible for currently available alternatives to replace what fossil fuels provide and if fossil fuels are gone people will have to go without). If that changes my opinion will change. But the change, when/if it comes has to be driven by economics. The government does not have wave a magic wand to wave which make uneconomic sources viable. Edited January 11, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

The fossil fuel infrastructure was built largely with private money driven purely by economics (the government did not pay people to build gas stations or to buy ICE cars). There are no technologies today that can economically replace what fossil fuels provide (in many cases, it is physically impossible for currently available alternatives to replace what fossil fuels provide and if fossil fuels are gone people will have to go without). If that changes my opinion will change. But the change, when/if it comes has to be driven by economics. The government does not have wave a magic wand to wave which make uneconomic sources viable.

The government has and does provide huge financial support for fossil fuel production. One day there will be no more of it and then we sure as hell will have to do without unles people get their heads out of their arses and develop alternatives.

[TimG]

The government has and does provide huge financial support for fossil fuel production.

I realize that this is myth that you want to believe. But wanting something to be true does not make it true. Fossil fuels are only in use because they make economic sense and need no government support.

One day there will be no more of it and then we sure as hell will have to do without unles people get their heads out of their arses and develop alternatives.

Fossil fuels will not disappear overnight. As they run out the prices will rise and people will either find alternatives or make do without. But this does not seem likely to happen in our lifetime.

[On Guard for Thee]

I realize that this is myth that you want to believe. But wanting something to be true does not make it true. Fossil fuels are only in use because they make economic sense and need no government support.

Fossil fuels will not disappear overnight. As they run out the prices will rise and people will either find alternatives or make do without. But this does not seem likely to happen in our lifetime.

Unfortunately you don't understand just how much funding fossil fuel production recieves from government. Until you learn that no sense carrying on.

[TimG]

Unfortunately you don't understand just how much funding fossil fuel production recieves from government.

I looked at and the answer is close to zero. You are completely delusional if you believe anything different.

[On Guard for Thee]

I looked at and the answer is close to zero. You are completely delusional if you believe anything different.

You are delusional if you believe that. Sorry but the information is all over the place. Maybe go back in history a bit to the National Energy Program would be a good start.

[TimG]

You are delusional if you believe that. Sorry but the information is all over the place.

Then produce it. I claim that I cannot find any evidence that there are significant subsidies given for production in developed countries. I can't prove a negative so the onus is on you to show that this statement is wrong. Please note: I said "developed countries" so don't waste time quoting the IEA report that documents consumer subsidies in developing countries because they do not apply.

Maybe go back in history a bit to the National Energy Program would be a good start.

This will be interesting: please explain how a program to force western producers to sell at lower than market prices is a subsidy for production? Consumption sure but that was 30 years ago. We are talking about today.

[On Guard for Thee]

Then produce it. I claim that I cannot find any evidence that there are significant subsidies given for production in developed countries. I can't prove a negative so the onus is on you to show that this statement is wrong. Please note: I said "developed countries" so don't waste time quoting the IEA report that documents consumer subsidies in developing countries because they do not apply.

This will be interesting: please explain how a program to force western producers to sell at lower than market prices is a subsidy for production? Consumption sure but that was 30 years ago. We are talking about today.

30 years ago the Canadian taxpayer was subsidizing Gulf oil as it drilled in the Beaufort. I know, I worked for them. You as a taxpayer are still doing so, in a big way, just some of the names have changed.

[TimG]

30 years ago the Canadian taxpayer was subsidizing Gulf oil as it drilled in the Beaufort. I know, I worked for them.

What you say does not make sense. Subsidize Gulf oil???? You need to separate subsidies for R&D from subsidies for production. It is true that most of the technologies we have today to extract oil exist because of government funding for R&D. But the point of the R&D funding was to give private industry the tools it needed to then operate independently from government. That is the state we are in today.

FWIW - I am not against government funding for R&D into alternative energy. I am against direct and indirect subsidies for the production from alternate sources.

Edited January 12, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

What you say does not make sense. Subsidize Gulf oil???? You need to separate subsidies for R&D from subsidies for production. It is true that most of the technologies we have today to extract oil exist because of government funding for R&D. But the point of the R&D funding was to give private industry the tools it needed to then operate independently from government. That is the state we are in today.

It may not make sense to you, but it does to me, I was there. And yes, that is the state we are still in today.

[TimG]

It may not make sense to you, but it does to me, I was there. And yes, that is the state we are still in today.

What you seem to be missing is oil production is a net source of revenue for governments. Alberta and Newfoundland are in trouble because of the drop in oil price. What this means is it mathematically impossible for there to be net subsidies for oil production in this country no matter what you would like to believe.

[On Guard for Thee]

What you seem to be missing is oil production is a net source of revenue for governments. Alberta and Newfoundland are in trouble because of the drop in oil price. What this means is it mathematically impossible for there to be net subsidies for oil production in this country no matter what you would like to believe.

The fact the oil price has dropped of late has nothing much to do with the reality of taxpayer subsidies of big oil for many years. Yep, they are losing money now for sure. Don't look at the last 6 months or so and think you have the whole picture.

[TimG]

The fact the oil price has dropped of late has nothing much to do with the reality of taxpayer subsidies of big oil for many years.

Yes it does - oil prices dropping means less production which means lower royalties for governments. Oil is a NET revenue generator for every government that has it. It is mathematically impossible for their to be NET production subsidies. You are trying to argue the earth is flat.

[On Guard for Thee]

Yes it does - oil prices dropping means less production which means lower royalties for governments. Oil is a NET revenue generator for every government that has it. It is mathematically impossible for their to be NET production subsidies. You are trying to argue the earth is flat.

You must like the taste of pablum. The subsidies to oil companies has been going on for years, even more so in the US than Canada, and continues. I can confirm to you the earth is round.

[TimG]

You must like the taste of pablum. The subsidies to oil companies has been going on for years, even more so in the US than Canada, and continues.

I have offered you a rational argument for why there can be no NET production subsidies. If you disagree you need to provide counter evidence (i.e. explain why dropping oil production reduces the money governments have). Simply asserting that your delusions are true is not an argument.

[On Guard for Thee]

I have offered you a rational argument for why there can be no NET production subsidies. If you disagree you need to provide counter evidence (i.e. explain why dropping oil production reduces the money governments have). Simply asserting that your delusions are true is not an argument.

Good god there must be a million places to find this info. Here's just one. Sorry you are so stuck in the mud over this. It's quite obvious to the rest of us and has been for many years. A waste of time to have to reiterate this well know situation.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2013/02/eliminate-fossil-fuel-subsidies

[TimG]

Good god there must be a million places to find this info.

Tax preferences - which means producers get no money if they don't make money. It is not a real subsidy.

I also used the word "NET". That means you need to show that the tax preferences given to oil and gas exceed the tax penalties. The US collects $80 billion a year in taxes on gasoline and $10 billion in royalties that do not apply to other products. This cancels out the $40 billion in tax preferences which means fossil fuels are a "NET" revenue generator for governments.

[Keepitsimple]

Tax preferences - which means producers get no money if they don't make money. It is not a real subsidy.

I also used the word "NET". That means you need to show that the tax preferences given to oil and gas exceed the tax penalties. The US collects $80 billion a year in taxes on gasoline and $10 billion in royalties that do not apply to other products. This cancels out the $40 billion in tax preferences which means fossil fuels are a "NET" revenue generator for governments.

Tim - you demonstrate extreme patience - and tolerance.

[poochy]

Tim - you demonstrate extreme patience - and tolerance.

Considering it always goes back to childish insults from that particular poster, i would have to agree.

[eyeball]

All that remains now is to subtract the impact of oil extraction and it's use on natural capital; ecosystems, habitat, species, sink resources etc.

I doubt the numbers being presented in the above posts come anywhere close to reflecting reality.

[TimG]

All that remains now is to subtract the impact of oil extraction and it's use on natural capital; ecosystems, habitat, species, sink resources etc.

If you want to start talking about intangibles you have to add the benefits to human welfare in terms of ensuring health, food and shelter for billions.

You can't get something for nothing. No matter what source of power we use there will be harms associated with the infrastructure required to provide it (i.e. if we built enough wind farms to replace fossil fuel electricity we would probably exterminate many species of birds - it is only a minor issue now because wind farms are trivial in size). The benefits of plentiful affordable energy should be self evident and it is worth living with some harms to have it.

Edited January 12, 2015 by TimG

[eyeball]

If you want to start talking about intangibles you have to add the benefits to human welfare in terms of ensuring health, food and shelter for billions.

Of course you do but first things first, you need to recognize that the real world is actually tangible. Conventional economics regards the environment as being external to the economy and that one has no bearing on the other.

That's just plain nuts.

[TimG]

Of course you do but first things first, you need to recognize that the real world is actually tangible.

From economic perceptive it is intangible because there is no market to determine the value of the asset. And economics has numerous strategies for accounting for externalities but the problem is with no market any value set for the externalities depends on the priorities of the individual doing the assessment. Edited January 12, 2015 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Coincidentally enough, I heard this last week:

http://www.radiolab.org/story/what-dollar-value-nature/

How Do You Put a Price Tag On Nature?

Back in 1997, a team of scientists slapped a giant price tag on the earth. They calculated the dollar value of every ecosystem on the planet, and tallied it all up: 142.7 trillion dollars.