Subsidies: Big Oil and Others

Filed in National by on April 5, 2012

If I give you $1 every year, would you give me $59 in return every year? Chances are, you wouldn’t. However, if I were an oil company and you were a member of Congress that’s exactly what happens, except you aren’t giving out your money.

As gas prices increase and the oil industry has it’s grip on the political establishment in Washington, author Bill McKibben gives five suggestions on how and why governments should and should not dole out subsidies.

  1. Don’t subsidize those who already have plenty of cash on hand.
  2. Don’t subsidize people forever.
  3. Sometimes you’ll subsidize something for a sensible reason and it won’t work out.
  4. Don’t subsidize something you want less of.
  5. Don’t give subsidies to people who have given you cash

It’s not a perfect set of rules on how a government should handle subsidies, but it’s a start.

Tags: , ,

About the Author ()

A Dad, a husband and a data guru

Comments (11)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Que Pasa says:

    1.Don’t subsidize those who already have plenty of cash on hand.

    I believe most of the “subsidies” come in the form of after the fact tax breaks.

    2.Don’t subsidize people forever.

    This is contrary to the Democrat Party platform.

    3.Sometimes you’ll subsidize something for a sensible reason and it won’t work out.

    Sh-t happens.

    4.Don’t subsidize something you want less of.

    For the near term, particularly while we’re mired the deepest recession in 80 years, I think we actually want MORE oil from places/countries that are friendly. Thus stablizing, if not lowering oil and subsequently gas prices until such time new technologies are mature enough to take over. (When a fossil fuel alternative can get a commercial jetliner to fly non-stop from NY to London in 6 to 7 hours, I’m sold. Until then, drill baby, drill!)

    5.Don’t give subsidies to people who have given you cash.

    Yeah, ok. Solyndra-bm-lm-dng-dng anyone?

  2. Socialistic ben says:

    did you actually forget what you said before you finished typing? your 3 and 5 contradict each other. but im stupid right? so how should i know.

    my kingdom for a rational conservative to talk to…..

  3. Que Pasa says:

    No, they are different.

    An elected official can give a subsidy to a good cause/reason only to have things fail, while never receiving a campaign donation from the subsidized.

    Solyndra is NOT an example of this…dng–lng!

  4. Socialistic ben says:

    HAHA! how are they different? because Obama did it? does “shit happens” only apply to republicans?
    Goodness gracious. Im calling you out QP.. you’re one of the contributors .. or some progressive who has adopted this persona to mix things up. No one actually thinks like this.
    you, QP are my new favorite online-performance artist. Tron Guy… eat your heart out.

  5. Geezer says:

    “This is contrary to the Democrat Party platform.”

    Prove it. Provide link.

    “For the near term, particularly while we’re mired the deepest recession in 80 years, I think we actually want MORE oil from places/countries that are friendly.”

    Oil is fungible. It makes no difference where it comes from. Very little of US imports are from the Middle East.

    “Thus stablizing, if not lowering oil and subsequently gas prices until such time new technologies are mature enough to take over.”

    Won’t work. Supply has to outstrip demand for that to work. We cannot pump enough to overcome the growth in demand from the growing economies of China, India and Brazil.

    “When a fossil fuel alternative can get a commercial jetliner to fly non-stop from NY to London in 6 to 7 hours, I’m sold. Until then, drill baby, drill!”

    You are operating under a misconception. We do not have to replace petroleum in every transportation use, unless you’re a climate-change warrior fighting carbon emissions. The key is to replace even 10% of our current transportation-based petroleum use with alternatives. Even that little (about 2 million barrels a day) would equal the entire output of Nigeria, or about half the daily production of Iran.

    “Solyndra-obama-lama-ding-dong anyone?”

    As usual, you can’t wrap your head around the notion that a liberal might have a different set of ideals than Obama does, and would actually say so out loud.

    FWIW, moving to a publicly financed election system would make that a moot point.

  6. Que Pasa says:

    You really are off your rocker…keep trying.

  7. cassandra_m says:

    And of course, QP is completely disconnected from either fact or reality. For everyone else reading this thread:

    What’s keeping US gas prices aloft?

    One of the newer reasons why oil companies make so much money is that they are currently net exporters of oil and gas products. Because other parts of the world will pay more than we will for these products. So, then, why would an American taxpayer subsidize the effort to sell products refined or extracted here in other countries? This is a pretty big signal of a very mature industry that is simply in the business of ripping off taxpayers.

  8. Geezer says:

    “You really are off your rocker…keep trying.”

    You could easily check anything I said. If you find something wrong, let me know and I’ll change it.

  9. Geezer says:

    “One of the newer reasons why oil companies make so much money is that they are currently net exporters of oil and gas products. Because other parts of the world will pay more than we will for these products.”

    Wrong. They pay the same thing we do. Crude oil has a market price, gasoline has a market price, etc. Some petroleum products are refined here and shipped elsewhere, others vice versa.We’re a net exporter because we’re currently producing more natural gas than the country uses and we’re almost out of storage capacity for it.

    From WSJ: “A combination of booming demand from emerging markets and faltering domestic activity means the U.S. is exporting more fuel than it imports, upending the historical norm.”

    The problem is that we’re still a big net importer of oil; it’s natural gas production, spurred by the fracking boom, that turned the tables. Unfortunately, unless and until we convert a segment of our vehicle fleet to natural gas, we’ll still be dependent upon imported oil for a long while to come.

  10. cassandra_m says:

    Wrong. It is more than just natural gas at this point. And while crude oil has a worldwide price, its refined products are *definitely* less so. And I was pretty specific about the refined products.

    And I wasn’t making any claims about not being dependent on natural gas, so no idea what you are getting to there.

  11. Que Pasa says:

    He’s old and doesn’t realize who is talking to him.

    ‘Huh…wah?’

    ‘Was that oil, gas or…uh…natural gas?’