Amy,

I'm guessing the you read the headline/article and not the bill.

If you read the bill it wants to extend the tax credit for the Volt and similar stuff. It also wants to extend the tax penalties for not having unicorn piss I note in this blog entry.

As soon as I got to the sentences below, I knew the article was written by an ideologue.

At this point, the greatest human challenge is to get off fossil fuels. If we don't do it soon, the climatologists tell us, our prospects as a civilization are grim. So why are we lending a significant helping hand to companies intent on driving us toward disaster?

In addition to what Jim P. wrote: I'm far from a tax expert, but it appears to me that at least some of the "subsidies" are simply depreciation of capital assets, something that's a generally accepted accounting principle and that every business is allowed to do in computing their taxes. I'm opposed to corporate subsidy, but I'm also opposed to the idea that an industry can be singled out for punitive tax treatment simply because they are politically unpopular.

What Cousin Dave said. I didn't bother reading the article. These so-called "subsidies" will just be the usual totting up of accelerated depreciation and R&D rebates available to any business.

You want them gone, fine. Repeal the special interest tax breaks across the board. Then wait for the screams.

McKibben's goofy, even if he's right about this, which seems unlikely. In a Star Trek parallel universe, I'd only dislike him as much as I dislike all the other intensely smug New Yorker contributors. But in this universe, Postrel has removed that option:

Part 1 & Part 2.

See also

So, in what universe is there not an excise tax on motor fuel?

This is just more grasping by a bloated government.

Cousin Dave highlights the problem. I've yet to hear anyone actually detail what these oil subsidies are. I've no doubt there are some, but oil exploration and recovery is extremely equipment intensive and that equipment depreciates rapidly in very real terms.

Ironically, most of the various farm subsidies, really are just handouts to big corporations. (ADM is one of the biggest pigs in Washington.)

BTW, for those who say Obama couldn't change the price of gasoline; they're wrong. Obama's policies reinforce the belief by speculators that oil prices will remain high. Start opening oil reserves and building pipelines and that will throw enough uncertainty that oil futures aren't so bullish.

The President could help....not a lot, but he could initiate sone temporary relief. He has no interest in doing so, however. Higher gas prices will reduce consumption and that is exactly what Barry wants. Environmental lobbyists are giddy at the not-so-farfetched idea of a $6 gallon of gasoline. So is GM, for it could pave the way for more electric car subsidies.

Consumers hold the power to do something meaningful. Far more than they think. Imagine a 24 hour boycott on gasoline. Not a very long ripple effect would be generated, but enough to be a wake up call to speculators and OPEC. Make it 48 hours. Hell, a week.

I also like the idea of pricing our grain exports to oil producing countries to match oil barrel prices. They hold us hostage by limiting production....why can't we do the same to them???

Lastly, environmentalist's grim prognostication of our civilization after further use of fossil fuels is a bunch of fearmongering hooey.

No, Joe, "boycotts" on gas do not work. Not only does that simply make the following day a bigger sales day, petroleum is a commodity. Freighters are even rerouted to the refinery at which more $$ can be made. You should look here.

Here's some awesome irony: "I also like the idea of pricing our grain exports to oil producing countries to match oil barrel prices."

It is to laugh - because you have cited the very reason for OPEC. It was a grain price excursion that started them.

"Fearmongering hooey."

That's a population graph to help show you that no, it's not. There are a lot of arguments clouded by the arguer's intended goal, but there are just two things, both of which you can see for yourself, that completely demolish any assertion about "hooey":

1) The first law of thermodynamics says that heat flows from hot to cold. This means that the point at which a fuel is burned is hotter. That means, where you are, using energy, is hotter.

You should know this. It is warmer in the city. Undeniable.

2) A fossil fuel burned is unrecoverable. Yes, when your neighbor wants to put it in the turbo dually to go to WalMart because she is bored, a farmer can't use that gallon to plow a field to put something in your grocery store.

Maybe you should look at nuke war games. The initial exchange doesn't kill anywhere near as many people as you might think. Starvation does, because the food transportation infrastructure is destroyed. Depending on the game, 1 to 4 billion people starve.

Of course, given time, food shipping can adapt, but we are already at the carrying limit with many seafoods, and population is still increasing.

The more people there are, the more energy required to feed them. This is independent of whether a given group can feed themselves.

Nobody's making more oil - and schemes to use algae, etc, are limited in the end by solar deposition.

Consumers hold the power to do something meaningful. Far more than they think. Imagine a 24 hour boycott on gasoline. Not a very long ripple effect would be generated, but enough to be a wake up call to speculators and OPEC. Make it 48 hours. Hell, a week. -- Joe at April 8, 2012 12:34 PM

You don't have a grasp of reality. So no one buys gas on Tuesday -- Everyone tops off on Monday, or waits until Wednesday. The burble doesn't matter.

This isn't like the Montgomery Bus Boycott where people can ride a bike or walk.

Further, have you read any of the links that were provided?

These supposed big oil "subsidies" are extensions of tax credits for buying a prius or a volt. They are for subsidies for creating bio-fuels from amoebas and similar products -- currently costing about $33 per gallon not barrel.

This bill had nothing to do with ending big oil subsidies. It would take away accelerated depreciation for equipment used by the small exploration firms that are already hamstrung by Obama's refusal to issue leases.

There is something the President could do right now: Order the EPA to reduce the 50 or so mandated blends of each grade of gasoline to three or four. There is no reason why every large city in the U.S. needs its own special blend of gasoline. All it does is complicate refining and the supply chain, and run up costs.

There is something the President could do right now: Order the EPA to reduce the 50 or so mandated blends of each grade of gasoline to three or four. There is no reason why every large city in the U.S. needs its own special blend of gasoline. All it does is complicate refining and the supply chain, and run up costs. -- Cousin Dave at April 8, 2012 6:40 PM

I'll believe Obama wants low gas prices the day he fires Energy Secretary Chu. Until then, Obama is just as guilty.

Why is our government picking winners and losers in the marketplace? Gerrymandering and monkeying around with the "natural" ebb and flow of business is wrong in every circumstance that I can imagine.

If a resource is in danger of "running out", the price will then rise as it becomes scarce forcing the development of its most cost effective replacement. If the use of something is detrimental to society as a whole, it should be regulated or outlawed. Short of that the fed needs to GTFO.

SI,

Can't agree more.

Government, which makes far more money from petroleum than oil companies do, is taking this stance to drive up prices which increases their take.

MarkD -

Specifically, Evil ExxonMobil makes 8 cents a gallon, while the Federal Government takes in almost 60.

But it's the oil companies that are greedy.

Brian- POst a link/cite

"If the use of something is detrimental to society as a whole, it should be regulated or outlawed. " No. That shit has resulted in some of the most blatantly stupid legislation ever. Prohibition, Gun Free Zones, The Drug War to name just a few.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_States
It's not the feds but both state and federal that get a combined 48 cents per gallon average tax.

http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2011/04/27/gas-prices-and-industry-earnings-a-few-things-to-think-about/

Regarding the oil subsidies ...

Before calling something a subsidy, you should have some idea who is getting subsidized, and who is doing the subsidizing.

They can't be the same who.

[Before cracking that nut, the answer to this question is a hint: Who pays corporate taxes?]

Vlad - thanks.

Crid - is California the only state where this hasn't been on the news on the radio every morning?

I guess the 60 cents is combined state and federal here in CT then. I know we've got one of the highest state gas taxes, but when I'm listening at 6:30 in the morning as I wake up, I don't always catch things flawlessly.