Page 7 of 17 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 167
Thanks Tree44Thanks

Thread: Trump Cannot Stop The Revolution!

  1. #61
    Established Member
    Joined
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    7,909
    Thanks
    1345

    From
    Banned
    Quote Originally Posted by RNG View Post
    A good righty like you using quality of life as an argument in a discussion of monetary payout? The world spins faster.
    There is monetary payback for refrigeration and air conditioned hospitals in addition to the quality of life improvement.

  2. #62
    Established Member
    Joined
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    7,909
    Thanks
    1345

    From
    Banned
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    This, from my link in post #54, happens to be entirely correct:

    A 2016 study estimated that global fossil fuel subsidies were $5.3 trillion in 2015, which represents 6.5% of global GDP.[3] The study found that "China was the biggest subsidizer in 2013 ($1.8 trillion), followed by the United States ($0.6 trillion), and Russia, the European Union, and India (each with about $0.3 trillion)."[3] The authors estimated that the elimination of "subsidies would have reduced global carbon emissions in 2013 by 21% and fossil fuel air pollution deaths 55%, while raising revenue of 4%, and social welfare by 2.2%, of global GDP."[3] According to the International Energy Agency, the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies worldwide would be the one of the most effective ways of reducing greenhouse gases and battling global warming.[4] In May 2016, the G7 nations set for the first time a deadline for ending most fossil fuel subsidies; saying government support for coal, oil and gas should end by 2025.[13]

    According to the OECD, subsidies supporting fossil fuels, particularly coal and oil, represent greater threats to the environment than subsidies to renewable energy. Subsidies to nuclear power contribute to unique environmental and safety issues, related mostly to the risk of high-level environmental damage, although nuclear power contributes positively to the environment in the areas of air pollution and climate change.[14] According to Fatih Birol, Chief Economist at the International Energy Agency without a phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies, countries will not reach their climate targets.[15]

    A 2010 study by Global Subsidies Initiative compared global relative subsidies of different energy sources. Results show that fossil fuels receive 0.8 US cents per kWh of energy they produce (although it should be noted that the estimate of fossil fuel subsidies applies only to consumer subsidies and only within non-OECD countries), nuclear energy receives 1.7 cents / kWh, renewable energy (excluding hydroelectricity) receives 5.0 cents / kWh and bio-fuels receive 5.1 cents / kWh in subsidies.[16]

    In 2011, IEA chief economist Faith Birol said the current $409 billion equivalent of fossil fuel subsidies are encouraging a wasteful use of energy, and that the cuts in subsidies is the biggest policy item that would help renewable energies get more market share and reduce CO2 emissions.[17]
    You shouldn't post contridicting data. One cite claims there are $409 billion in subsidies and another that there is $5,300 billion in subsidies.

    I do know that, and so do you, that the US government does not subsidize the fossil fuel industry by $600 billion every year as your cite claims.

  3. #63
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    26,140
    Thanks
    21606

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    I love it... You are proud that you added the rest that un makes your point?

    See how it takes 0.8 cents of subsidies to maintain oil prices, honestly, other than the risks of finding nothing, oil is profitable without (generally speaking)... It takes 5.1cents per kWh to make solar profitable.

    What's the cost for grid power? 8-12cents per kWh?

    Which is also outside confirmation that I told you before how, based on my calculations and with geographical exceptions, it's roughly a doubling of efficiency at the same cost is needed before most solar projects cross into becoming viably profitable.

    However, still need something else to deal with night time.
    In the hopes of assisting you in your education:

    Solar energy is killing coal, despite Trump's promises - Jun. 20, 2017

  4. #64
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    26,140
    Thanks
    21606

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
    You shouldn't post contridicting data. One cite claims there are $409 billion in subsidies and another that there is $5,300 billion in subsidies.

    I do know that, and so do you, that the US government does not subsidize the fossil fuel industry by $600 billion every year as your cite claims.
    The fossil fuel industry in America is getting two very large indirect subsidies that you are not accounting for:

    (1) A large portion of America's military spending is meant to ASSURE the free passage of oil from the Middle East, not so much to us, as to our allies. If we and our allies were not so dependent on oil, those military expenditures would not be required.

    (2) We are NOT accounting for the negative externalities associated with the burning of fossil fuels, which would call for a Pigovian tax on that negative externality in conventional economics. Of course, if you are someone who refuses to accept the growing scientific consensus on AGW, then this argument is not likely to penetrate the cranium.
    Thanks from Dittohead not!

  5. #65
    Established Member
    Joined
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    7,909
    Thanks
    1345

    From
    Banned
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    The fossil fuel industry in America is getting two very large indirect subsidies that you are not accounting for:

    (1) A large portion of America's military spending is meant to ASSURE the free passage of oil from the Middle East, not so much to us, as to our allies. If we and our allies were not so dependent on oil, those military expenditures would not be required.

    (2) We are NOT accounting for the negative externalities associated with the burning of fossil fuels, which would call for a Pigovian tax on that negative externality in conventional economics. Of course, if you are someone who refuses to accept the growing scientific consensus on AGW, then this argument is not likely to penetrate the cranium.
    Neither which are subsidies.

    You claim the US oil industry is getting $600 billion annually in US government subsidies.

  6. #66
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    26,140
    Thanks
    21606

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
    Neither which are subsidies.
    Clearly, you need to learn the difference between a DIRECT SUBSIDY and an INDIRECT SUBSIDY.

    Go off, and do that, and then come back.

  7. #67
    Established Member
    Joined
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    7,909
    Thanks
    1345

    From
    Banned
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    Clearly, you need to learn the difference between a DIRECT SUBSIDY and an INDIRECT SUBSIDY.

    Go off, and do that, and then come back.
    US foreign policy and military spending have done more to disrupt the flow of petro from the ME than to secure it, it isn't an indirect subsidy, the vast majority of US petro comes from North America and there are sufficient reserves for energy independence. $600 billion is roughly the size of the entire US military spend.

    Try again.

  8. #68
    Veteran Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    13,861
    Thanks
    2297

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    In the hopes of assisting you in your education:

    Solar energy is killing coal, despite Trump's promises - Jun. 20, 2017
    Lmao... this is the third time in a row where you accidentally prove my point thinking you are proving yours...

    I've tried so many different ways to explain this to you, I don't think you want to get the point, one last time for good measure... if you had the choice between 2 gas stations, one gas station gets 0.8 cents per liter from subsidies. The other gas station has gas that is watered down and so generates less energy, but on this one they get 60% of the cost subsidized. Both gas stations are a cost the street from each other and there's not enough gas to get to the next station. Which station do you pick? The one that is essentially full price, or the one that is less than half price but less efficient?

    Now, is the second gas station getting more business because the gas is better or because the price is artificially cheaper?

  9. #69
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    26,140
    Thanks
    21606

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    Lmao... this is the third time in a row where you accidentally prove my point thinking you are proving yours...

    I've tried so many different ways to explain this to you, I don't think you want to get the point, one last time for good measure... if you had the choice between 2 gas stations, one gas station gets 0.8 cents per liter from subsidies. The other gas station has gas that is watered down and so generates less energy, but on this one they get 60% of the cost subsidized. Both gas stations are a cost the street from each other and there's not enough gas to get to the next station. Which station do you pick? The one that is essentially full price, or the one that is less than half price but less efficient?

    Now, is the second gas station getting more business because the gas is better or because the price is artificially cheaper?
    Your 'analogy' is nothing less than a blubbering and bloviating FAIL. I even gave you a link that SHOWS how solar is simply KILLING the coal industry, because it has become CHEAPER, and you go on as if you didn't even bother to read it. What a schlemiel.

  10. #70
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    26,140
    Thanks
    21606

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
    US foreign policy and military spending have done more to disrupt the flow of petro from the ME than to secure it
    How so?!??

    We have a very large naval presence in the Middle East. Do you know why? To ASSURE the continued flow of oil through the Persian Gulf. Do you have any clue how EASY it would be for Iran to shut off the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, simply by scuttling a number of their own ships in that narrow straight? It would take MONTHS for the U.S. Navy to be able to clear the strait.

    And I am sorry to hear that the concept of an indirect subsidy is something your mind is not equipped to handle.

Page 7 of 17 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 18th February 2017, 06:10 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 13th November 2016, 10:10 PM
  3. Trump & his minions just never stop
    By Friday13 in forum Current Events
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 21st August 2016, 05:57 AM
  4. Only a time traveler can stop Trump
    By Robert Urbanek in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 1st March 2016, 10:55 AM
  5. Replies: 33
    Last Post: 17th February 2011, 09:56 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed