Originally Posted By TomSawyer Mitt, you see, wants to "create a level playing field on which all sources of energy can compete on their merits." Thus, he wants to end the subsidies given to wind power and other clean energy sources in the past few years. But he plans on keeping the $40 billion a year in subsidies and tax breaks given to the oil industry.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Considering how much was wasted on solar subsidies over the past 3 years this may be a good thing.
Originally Posted By HRM As long as both candidates keep going at each other.... we'll have plenty of "wind power" Too bad we can't harness it.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<But he plans on keeping the $40 billion a year in subsidies and tax breaks given to the oil industry.>> Come on Conservatives - does the above really not bother you? The oil industry makes trillions - are you really ok with leaving those tax breaks and subsidies in place at the expense of subsidies to clean energy? Pershing clean energy should be a nonpartisan issue. I mean, who wouldn't want to keep the environment clean? Do you people want to breath polluted air and drink filthy water??
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Curious to see the breakdown of the 40 billion in tax breaks and subsidies, until I get a breakdown I cannot say I am for or against the subsidies...
Originally Posted By plpeters70 I ask again - do you want to live in a filthy environment, or a world where climate change has gone out of control? Cause that's what your advocating for when you support cutting back on funding for alternative energy. This planet is on the brink - and we should be doing everything in our power to get our fossil fuel usage down. But instead, I hear people calling for cutting subsidies for clean energy technologies, and keeping tax breaks and subsidies for gas companies! It's insane - and I really feel bad for future generations who will look back at us with disgust. We truly must be the most selfish generation of people to ever walk the earth.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 do you want to live in a filthy environment, or a world where climate change has gone out of control? Cause that's what your advocating for when you support cutting back on funding for alternative energy.<< I want to live on a planet where we grant subsidies to companies based on how much they donate to a policial campaign and then the companies go bankrupt, costing American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. With our current system of granting subsidies, it is ripe with fraud, I would rather our world go to hell then allow political allies of either party to pocket millions of dollars on so called subsidies then go bankrupt a few years later.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Also where did the 40 billion dollar lie come from. This is straight from cnn.com. <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/07/news/economy/energy-subsidies/index.htm" target="_blank">http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/0...ndex.htm</a> Renewable energy and energy efficiency accounted for $16 billion of the federal support, according to the Congressional Budget Office, while the fossil-fuel industry received $2.5 billion in tax breaks.
Originally Posted By SuperDry While we're cutting energy subsidies to wind and oil to allow market forces to work, let's be sure to not forget everything that's done directly and indirectly to support ethanol as an energy source: payments to farmers to grow corn, mandates that retail gasoline contain 10% ethanol, etc.
Originally Posted By fkurucz **Yeah because wind power is keeping our energy costs down these days.** I believe that the objective is to keep our air clean. You know, because we breathe it.
Originally Posted By ecdc Seriously, does anyone have anything constructive to add, or is it all just misanthropic, "everything sucks so let's keep the status quo" solutions? It's a silly knee-jerk reaction to hippie tree huggers. Investing in renewable energy is a good idea.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer We have an ever increasing demand for electricity, so anything we can do to add to the grid without a huge environmental impact is a good thing. We're going to have sunlight available to us for about 5 billion more years, and as long as there is sunlight there will be wind. We're also going to have tides as long as there is a moon and oceans. Harnessing energy from those sources should be a no-brainer, especially for people that don't want us beholden to the Saudis.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<especially for people that don't want us beholden to the Saudis.>> Exactly. Whether we like it or not, America doesn't have a large enough domestic supply of fossil fuels to last us forever - we HAVE to find other sources. And heck, even if we did have enough, we couldn't burn them all without destroying the climate - so either way, we need to move on to other sources of energy. This is a National Security issue, so it would be irresponsible for the government NOT to get involved.
