aggie57

This is helpful:

https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst...nced_mode=true

breny4104

Undercharging for environmental costs, which is cited in both of the links posted, is not a subsidy, and can be arbitrary in its determination of value. It's like me saying that you owe me $1 Million and, since you haven't paid me, I am subsidizing you.

Joe250

Per the articles above, the IMF says the following are subsidies to the oil industry:

"Explicit subsidies also include direct support to producers, such as accelerated depreciation, but these are relatively small.Implicit subsidies occur when the retail price fails to include external costs, inclusive of the standard consumption tax. External costs include contributions to climate change through greenhouse gas emissions, local health damages (primarily pre-mature deaths) through the release of harmful local pollutants like fine particulates, and traffic congestion and accident externalities associated with the use of road fuels."

So....thank you for proving my point. The oil industry does not receive subsidies.

Every time you crash your car and the oil companies don't pay you, you're subsidizing them? Life expectancy rose from 36 in 1850 to 71 presently, during the time when oil has become a dominant energy source, but that means oil is getting a free ride? What kind of disingenuous, twisted logic is this?

Edward

I will not get embroiled in this discussion ...too frustrating. The assertion in bold is wrong, dead wrong. Listen to what the powerbrokers are saying, their own words. What you believe here and what those who wield governmental influence have actually said, innumerable times, are at odds. Listen for yourself.

Done here ...not even gonna check back as this thread was doomed from the start. Yet to the OP, not your fault!


Edward

ipse dixit

My apologies, but apparently we understand the English language differently.

Which is ok, not everyone can be right.

Larson E. Rapp

Pretty much every dollar in the US DoD budget that doesn't involve defending the United States homeland -- the vast majority of it, in other words -- is a subsidy to the oil industry.




Not saying this is a Good Thing or that it is a Bad Thing, but let's call a spade a spade, shall we?

breny4104

Yes, we spend a lot protecting the free flow of oil. If we didn't, the economies of the world would tank and lose trillions upon trillions of dollars. If that were to happen, death rates would soar, another world war would break out over a battle for scarce resources, people would starve to death, etc. etc - it would be mayhem. These are not freebie handouts to the industry. The benefit in the cost/benefit analysis far exceeds the cost of what you are calling subsidies (which they are not).

Let's reduce our dependence on oil, I'm all for it. But I'm not going to cut off our nose to spite our face and make a boogy man out of the oil industry just because it's fashionable to do so.

Larson E. Rapp

And now we're being told that serious environmental concerns require a climbdown from the oil-based world economy. If that's true -- and believe me, I'm the last person qualified to argue such points -- then the exact same reasoning you've cited can be used to justify equally-massive subsidies for electrification and renewable energy.

Point being, it's subsidies all the way down. "But look at all the subsidies the people I don't like are getting!" is not a valid criticism... especially when coming from the likes of Musk, but never mind that.

breny4104

Yes, they need to subsidize electrification to prime the pump so to speak. The bone of contention is: are oil companies getting big subsidies from the tax payer? And my answer is, I don't think so. It appears that they are saying that the oil companies aren't paying, for example, the environmental cost, health costs, and etc, associated with fossil fuel consumption, and they are calling that a subsidy.

Mike981S

I think we need to differentiate between direct and indirect subsidies as well as contributions in form of taxes. A just 10-minute chat with Bing Copilot gives me the following information that one can follow-up on to dive in deeper. I am not making any claims to the accuracy of the statements in the referenced sources or how correct the language model was in answering my questions. But I do find the result interesting and should help us all understand what we should aim for. Even if the currently touted alternatives have also problems that should be factored in assessing whether an alternative is feasible and able to address the challenges ahead.

Prompt: how much taxes are paid by the oil refineries in Texas?

In 2023, the Texas oil and natural gas industry, which includes oil refineries, paid a record-breaking $26.3 billion in state and local taxes and state royalties12. This amount translates to approximately $72 million per day2, supporting various public services such as education, infrastructure, and first responders.

This looks great at first. But then the next answer is concerning:

Prompt: what are the additional health costs caused by the oil refineries in Texas?

The health costs associated with oil refineries in Texas are significant. A study found that air pollution from domestic oil and gas production, including refineries, is responsible for about $77 billion in health impacts nationwide every year, with Texas being one of the states with the highest proportion of these health damages.

Living near oil refineries has been linked to increased risks of various health issues, including cancer, asthma, and birth defects. For example, people living within 10 miles of a refinery in Texas have a significantly higher risk of being diagnosed with cancer compared to those living farther away.

These health impacts translate into substantial medical costs and lost productivity, highlighting the need for stricter pollution controls and better monitoring of emissions.

While one can probably argue about the amount (I am sure some will argue it is lower and some that it would be higher), the impact here is that the cost of refining is probably not covered by the amount of taxes paid. Now let's ask the last question:

Prompt: How much are the direct subsidies in tax relief for the oil refineries in Texas?

The direct subsidies in tax relief for oil refineries in Texas have been substantial. Over the past 20 years, the Chapter 313 program alone provided $10 billion in tax cuts to corporations, with petrochemical firms, including oil refineries, being the biggest beneficiaries. Additionally, specific subsidies for the oil and gas industry, such as those in the Permian Basin, cost Texas taxpayers $1.4 billion in 2023.

These subsidies have been a topic of debate, especially with increasing public pushback against fossil fuel companies and a growing emphasis on renewable energy.

So for that specific location and part of the fossil fuel industry, it looks like that the tax subsidies and incentives were about $2B in 2023 and netted a tax income of $26B: a plus of $24B for the state of Texas. However, the additional yearly health costs caused by the refineries seem to be higher than the tax gain and someone carries that burden (either by loss of productivity, increased health care costs or by dying). And that is not even including other potential costs such as increased insurance rates and property damages due to increased wildfires and hurricane damages and floods due to rising sea levels.

I think that fossil fuels have had a tremendous positive impact on the human development over the last 100+ years (I am sure nobody wants to go back to a time when you could not see the other side of the road due to coal heating). However, there are long-term impacts of using fossil fuels that are now causing issues that we should be addressing going forward. And attacking each other is not going to help with that.