The Sierra Club is a behemoth of an organization, with seemingly endless sources of funding and influence. They have been relentless on their attack on the coal industry, and they have been successful. In March, the campaign was given a $50 million dollar grant in its efforts to turn the public against coal.
The environmental group is based in San Francisco, and was founded in 1892 by socialist John Muir (although this fact is not mentioned in the extensive information about John Muir on their Website). The organization began its "Beyond Coal" campaign and has effectively delivered the message that coal "is our dirtiest energy source. Coal is the source of more than 30 percent of our global warming pollution, it causes asthma and other health problems, and mining it destroys our mountains and releases toxic mercury into our communities," as reported by the NY Times on March 26th of this year.
The New York Times reported that "since Beyond Coal began, proposals for 166 new coal-fired power plants had been abandoned, retirement dates had been secured for 106 existing plants, new mountaintop removal mining permits had slowed significantly and the Tennessee Valley Authority had agreed to phase out coal plants." Coal has been effectively crucified.
Natural Gas: The New Villain!
Now, there is a new target...natural gas. Natural gas is abundant and cheaper than renewable energy. It is also much more dependable than renewable energy, and therefore, a threat. The green group will have an all out war on the natural gas industry, just as they have with coal.
Oddly, their position has "evolved", since just four short years ago.
In 2008, the venerable organization came out in support of the U.S. natural gas industry, reported Oil and Gas Investor magazine (and has received millions from the industry). Carl Pope, executive director of the roughly 700,000-member organization in 1992 stated, "Among the fossil fuels, natural gas is at the top." The article continued, "It favors producing all that the U.S. can put out. That is because the Sierra Club would also like to see U.S. energy independence."
Why the change? The abundance of natural gas and the low cost will put renewable energy in the back seat. So, the environmental group needs to convince the lemmings in America that natural gas is bad, despite what it has said previously. The Wall Street Journal states "now that the hydraulic fracturing and shale revolution has sent gas prices down to $2.50, the lobby fears natural gas will come to dominate U.S. energy production. At that price, the Sierra Club's Valhalla of wind, solar and biofuel power may never be competitive. So the green left has decided it must do everything it can to reduce the supply of gas and keep its price as high as possible."
The new campaign, "Beyond Natural Gas," has a goal: to shut down the industry. According to executive director Michael Brune, "We're going to be preventing new gas plants from being built wherever we can." The article states "This is no idle threat. They have deep pockets funded by liberal foundations and knows how to work the media and politicians."
Doug Hock, a spokesman in Colorado for the Encana USA oil and gas company, said "For a lot of folks, unfortunately, the bridge has become a bridge too far. From an economic standpoint the abundance of natural gas has made renewables less economic," he said.
It appears that the rest of the green movement still needs to quickly change their tune about natural gas. If they continue to support it, they will start to contradict themselves.
There may be "scientific consensus" that the climate is changing and it is caused by man, but apparently it is less clear what exactly man is doing to raise CO2 emissions. Reuters reported that "In the United States, the world's second-biggest CO2 emitter, a switch to natural gas from coal in power plants, a slower economy and a mild winter helped cut emissions by 1.7%."
They must not have heard yet that natural gas is the new villain.
Watch the video of President Obama discussing the coal industry.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 62
-it is still a fossil fuel, and therefore NOT renewable
-it threatens efforts to get to REAL renewable energies, such as wind and solar
-it still emits carbon when burned, so depending on it to generate electricity fails to solve the global warming problem.
And we still do not have a level playing field in the area of federal incentives to energy producers. The fossil fuel industry still gets two or three times as much money from tax breaks and other incentives (despite being wildly profitable and not needing any tax breaks) as the renewable energy industry does.
But it needs to be mentioned that the collapse of coal in the electricity market has nothing to do with Obama policies. It happened simply because of the marketplace. The utilities saw a cheaper fuel, natural gas, and they all went for it.
It's shocking that Gather pays people to write things that are bigger on provocativeness than they are on fact. Not worth the time.
As usual, I am not claiming to be a scientist, but I have a problem with hypocrisy.
This is what bothers me:
The Sierra Club 2008: Carl Pope, executive director, "Among the fossil fuels, natural gas is at the top." The article continued, "It favors producing all that the U.S. can put out. That is because the Sierra Club would also like to see U.S. energy independence."
The Sierra Club 2012: Executive Director Michael Brune, "We're going to be preventing new gas plants from being built wherever we can."
Just this Past week from Reuters: " a switch to natural gas from coal in power plants, a slower economy and a mild winter helped cut emissions by 1.7%."
I don't think leftists will be happy until we have no energy sources at all and we're all sitting around using candles for light at night.
-it threatens efforts to get to REAL renewable energies, such as wind and solar
-it still emits carbon when burned, so depending on it to generate electricity fails to solve the global warming problem.
1. Doesn't matter. The price system solves any problems with supply.
2. No, it actually moves things in your direction. Take out natural gas and dirtier energies will fill most of the gap, not your ideal sources.
3. That would be your only legit point, as pollution should be illegal in the first place. That doesn't mean natural gas shouldn't be used, but it should only be used in a way that doesn't trespass the property of other with pollutants.
And what if those statements are factual? Why do you dismiss them?
that statement is false. In the year 2011, the human race on planet earth emitted some 31 billion tons of carbon into the global atmosphere. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are now approaching 400 parts per million, up from only 260 parts per million a couple centuries ago before the widespread burning of fossil fuels.
And like you have been told many times. All of that C02 and no additional warming.
Indeed, Chris. Renee's statement that "it is less clear what exactly man is doing to raise CO2 emissions" is intentionally false. She simply made it up. We have very detailed records of how man is raising CO2 emissions. The empirical documentation of emissions and of the increasing CO2 concentrations in the oceans and atmosphere is huge.
We can give her credit for getting the other part right, i.e., that there is a scientific consensus that "the climate is changing and it is caused by man." Perhaps the amateur denialists could acknowledge that fact.
And like you have been told many times. All of that C02 and no additional warming. [Graham L.]
Seems not. As usual, Graham makes his statement based on the lies he and others have plagiarized from denialist lobbying groups like GWPF and the dishonest anonymous blog C3 Headlines.
GWPF is an industry lobbying group created in late 2009 with the primary purpose of lobbying against discussions being held at the Copenhagen Climate Summit. GWPF seeds the internet with lobbyist-slanted articles that misrepresent the science with the knowledge that ideological amateur denialists will plagiarize them and saturate the blogosphere. It's a common tactic of lobbying groups.
C3 Headlines is an anonymous blog that also seeds the internet with falsehoods knowing that the ideologues will plagiarize them as well. Within hours the internet search engines are saturated with lobbyist provided bunk. It all proves to be false - every single time. But they don't care because the ideologues will continue to plagiarize it and repeat it no matter how blatantly ridiculous the lie is. C3 specializes in creating colorful graphs in which they cherry pick some short-term data, do a simple calculation (usually ensuring that the unusually high year of 1998 is the starting point and ignoring the equally high years of 2005 and 2010, not to mention the hottest decade ever), and then claim that short-term calculation is a long-term trend. Such an assertion is patently unscientific and blatantly dishonest. But the ideologues don't care to even try to understand this deceit. They just repeat it over and over anyway.
Meanwhile, the planet continues to warm. The last 12 months have been the hottest 12-month period in history. The last decade has been the hottest decade in history and the last three decades have shown an increasing warmth as time goes on.
Perhaps the amateur denialists need to plagiarize less from industry lobbyist organizations and dishonest blogs and start plagiarizing from actual scientific organizations like NASA, NOAA, etc.
Wasn't it just a few years ago there was talk about the flatulating cattle and now we are hearing about the dinasours that excelerated their extinction because of their flatulation.
Can we be so sure it is man's generation of energy, I wonder how the 'global warming' model addresses man's flatulations (6 billion could be a source of CH4, a 'greenhouse gas')?
The market place has a great deal of influence on coals situation. However, consider this that as other supplies of fossil fuel dwindle coal will re-emerge when demand rises.
The other thing to consider is that not all organization are pure, and they need to have a headline of the moment to draw contributors. Natural gas has displace coal as a headline and so it now becomes the new issue of the moment. So I am not as surprised as you on the change. I do agree that is it about being 'green' the question is the hue.
Wow.
There is 100 years of science, multiple lines of empirical evidence, tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers, and conformance with basic physics...all of which data are so overwhelming and so unequivocal that virtually no one knowledgeable could deny it...that led scientists to the scientific consensus.
You really need to become more informed before commenting.
Do you find these statements to be conflicting?
The Sierra Club 2008: Carl Pope, executive director, "Among the fossil fuels, natural gas is at the top." The article continued, "It favors producing all that the U.S. can put out. That is because the Sierra Club would also like to see U.S. energy independence."
The Sierra Club 2012: Executive Director Michael Brune, "We're going to be preventing new gas plants from being built wherever we can."
True.
Scientific consensus........... what an oxymoron.
Consensus means general agreement. Do you really think scientists cannot be in general agreement?
Here is another link to show people that they actually have to build coal, gas, and nuclear power plants.
More Coal, More Gas, Nuclear: German Government May Abandon Green Energy Transition.
http://thegwpf.org/international-news/5819-more-coal-more-gas-more-nuclear-german-government-may-abandon-green-energy-transition.html
The people in your post are very dangerous people indeed; they would ruin countries at the drop of a hat in their quest to bring down the industries that fuel the country and keep it going. They cannot stand the thought that everything that they have fought so hard for with the lies that they have told is now all for nothing. They thought they had it all in the bag all sown up with the windy mills and Solar, along with all the scare stories about CO2 warming the planet which by the way has never been proved no matter what the scaremongers say. And then comes along all this nice clean natural gas that can be Fracked
Frakking Great: The Economist Sees Shale Gas Benefits
http://thegwpf.org/energy-news/5868-frakking-great-the-economist-sees-shale-gas-benefits.html
When will these people learn that at the moment alternative energy for industrialised countries is an impossible dream, and that it has to run alongside fossil energy to keep the industrialised country's going.
I myself have just had installed solar panels to help keep my electric costs down, however if I disconnected my home from the UK grid I would be quickly in the dark in winter because I need the National grid to supply my electricity in winter when it don't get light until 8am and it becomes dark at 3.45 pm most days. I have had it just over two months and I can see the difference even now, as we start our summer months. The last two weeks where wonderful and sunny and we drew very little from the National Grid, (they install a meter that shows you the changes) the last couple of days we have seen a change its overcast, grey, and guess what we are pulling more electricity from the Grid.
These Green people do not understand that if they get rid completely of fossil fuel country's will go under, because you cannot run a large industrialised factory that pulls all its power from traditional power sources from windy mills and solar.
This is the reason that the Windy Mills don't work properly Renee an why they are a pipe dream for the Greens.
http://www.windenergy-the-truth.com/
Needless to say, that would be beyond silly. It would be, in fact, more than a little crazy.
Those who recognize the need to move away from fossil fuels, both for short and long term impacts, have been working to develop sustainable energy solutions that will reduce carbon emissions, enhance national security, and provide jobs for people willing to learn and build new technologies. Getting from A to B isn't instantaneous; it requires moving step by step. Which is what renewable resource development is doing.
Furthermore, it seems you have misrepresented Germany's long-term goals. Their current strategy is to move away from nuclear energy (in large part due to the nuclear meltdown at Fukushima) and towards renewables. Despite the spin GWPF tried to impart on their blog, Germany isn't abandoning renewable energy at all. In fact, it is the opposite. Big shock there - your lobbying bloggers misrepresented the facts.
From the original article cited by the blog (translated):
"Federal Research Minister Annette Schavan (CDU), told the paper, the long term are wind and solar energy as the target. Along the way, but it will give stages, where gas and coal will have to close gaps."
So your own source admits that Germany's goal is to move toward renewable energy. In fact, Germany just set the world record for solar power production. As with all transitions it will take time and innovation.
I assume you aren't against innovation, national security, and sustainability. Right? Or are you in favor of letting the Chinese bypass the US, the UK and Europe?
Both are Green radicals with a personal agenda. I notice that David has linked an article to Wikipedia a very good site for information NOT, why any person would send someone to Wikipedia knowing that it is a site that people can edit to whatever they wish it to be is beyond my compression unless it’s to be dishonest.
David also has changed tack on this post he usually sends people to his own Gather page, this time he has sent a link to his friend Steve’s article. Steve is a nice guy but again his bias shines through as he also is a green radical who although he has brought an environmentally friendly car can’t see that without the oil industry he would not be driving that environmentally friendly car as most of its components are made from material made from oil or that it was made with machinery that can’t run unless oil is king.
And once again, we see Davids insulting behaviour on a subject that shows the Greens for what they really are.
The sad fact of the matter is that countries cannot run properly without fossil fuels. Whole industries rely on Fossil and nuclear energy. From the large supermarkets that we all rely on to shop for our food, try running a supermarket on alternative energy, the next time you shop in one take a look at how many freezers and refrigerators it has, look at how many lights it has, how many cash tills it has. The next time you go out and shop at your nearest large Mall look at how much lighting the mall has along with how many shops it has that have to run on fossil made electricity.
The next time you are out and about in your nearest town or city take a look at how many offices there are that rely on fossil electricity, when you go to drew your money out of the ATM machine think of it not working and you unable to draw that money out if it because we are now using alternative energy.
Everything that we use in today’s modern world from the computer to nearly everything in your home is made using oil.
It will be a sad day on our planet if people like Chris, David and their followers get their way a sad day indeed.
http://thegwpf.org/international-news/5697-germany-faces-energy-disaster-next-winter.html
this is what awaits a world that is fixated on renewable energy.
False. You made that up.
Every post that they write, every comment that they write is to demonize fossil fuel.
Nope. Just acknowledging that the burning of fossil fuels is causing global warming, which after all, is what 100 years of science tells us. This fact is unequivocal. And like other honest people Chris and I are taking responsibility for dealing with that fact.
Not surprisingly, the fossil fuel industry isn't too crazy about the idea that dealing with it might cut into their profits. They are certainly welcome to lobby for or against any of the possible policy solutions. They cannot, however, lie about the science in order to avoid an honest discussion of solutions.
David especially has a fixation on demonizing GWPF and C3 Headlines
Nope. Just noting that they are lobbyists who have been shown to misrepresent the science every single time. That is, when they aren't lying outright about it. C3 is particularly egregious in creating dishonest - but colorful - graphs and employing unscientific (and again, dishonest) pseudocalculations to lie about the science. The fact that they know enough to cherry pick and then choose how they do their calculations demonstrates that they are lying about the science on purpose.
The fact that you and others rely on lobbyists who dishonestly lie about the science as your sole source of information reveals quite a lot.
perhaps it is because they are telling the truth and he sees them as a threat to his religion.
Nope. You made that up too. This seems to be a pattern, just making up whatever you want when you can't provide any defensible support for your rather rabid positions. The meme of mentioning "religion" (or even better, "It's all All Gore") is a sure tip off that your motivation is political and that you can't defend anything you've said. It's a rather obvious "tell."
Have you not actually read any of the materials I've linked?
I link to a variety of sources, including NASA, NOAA, NSIDC, CRU, the National Academy of Sciences, etc. I also link to posts that I've written before; those posts were written because it saves time having to explain it for the 100th time to folks like you who continue to repeat the same disproven talking points over and over even though they have been shown to be false over and over. The posts link to original sources. Which you would know if you ever read any of them.
As for Steve's article, he summarized several scientific studies that showed that virtually all climate scientists agreed that the 100 years of science unequivocally demonstrates that the planet is warming and that man's use of fossil fuels is the main reason. He also linked to the statements of many of the major scientific organizations and national academies that agree the science is unequivocal.
All of the science organizations, nearly every climate scientist, 100 years of research, tens of thousands of peer-reviewed studies, basic physics, and reams and reams of overwhelming empirical evidence that demonstrate unequivocally that burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet.
In contrast, you cite a non-science lobbying organization shown to misrepresent the science and an anonymous blog that uses dishonest and unscientific fakery to outright lie about the science.
All the world's science versus lobbyists who lie.
What people choose as sources reveals a lot about themselves.
David, Lebrea, Chris, Natural gas is not as good as renewable energy but it is better than coal. This is not my argument. Just because you happen to be for the Sierra Club, I would like for you to take a step back and realize what my article is actually about.
It is about hypocrisy.
People can read all of my comments above. They see nothing insulting. They do see that I've acknowledged that you rely on an industry lobbyist that misrepresents the science and an anonymous blog that lies about the science. You've also made up quite a bit that isn't based on anything factual.
As for "insulting behaviour," the following was offered by you in one comment in a previous post:
"warmegedisnests and doomotoligests that spout their nonsensical rubbish"
"The one thing that stands out with their nonsensical utterings"
"These Warmageddonist Muppets"
"but the fact of the matter is that Climate Change or Global Warming is a very good weapon to beat each one of us about the head to try and brow beat the ones who are far more intelligent to believe the utter rubbish that they spout"
"They are a dangerous breed of idiots"
"and that includes you R.F that will never work in a month of Sundays."
And let's not forget his accusations of causing mass murder:
It’s all right people like R.F muttering on about alternative energy but R.F forgets that there is a high price to pay for this energy an energy that into day’s world does not work properly an energy that would kill millions of people when in winter it stops working."
"As I said, they are very dangerous people indeed."
"the idiots on the Green advice have sunk the money into arty farty windy mills over 3,500 of the buggers that don't work"
"we should sit them down in a room and make the bastards digest the truth about them, mind you having said that the idiots would still ague that they are the best thing since sliced bread they are that brainwashed about alternative energy"
"that these idiots have taken to heart"
"Useless pieces of engineering for useless brain dead greens who are not fit for anything else in life but for being Green in more ways than one."
"God why couldn't I have had a few of me lined up in front of me when I was in the military I would have been able to knock some sense into their brain dead heads."
a couple non persons stop by
Newsflash dimwits
Now of you go slink away go fester, no one wants to hear what you have to say.
people like those two idiots above.
Those two mugs
So all of the above, plus threats of bodily harm and/or psychological and/or verbal abuse by you, are "providing support" while actually supporting what I say is "insulting behaviour?"
This rather bizarre Orwellian juxtaposition of reality (and morality) is also very revealing about the people involved.
Good luck with that.
"The reason behind the Sierra Club’s major campaign to kill the natural gas industry is fear of competition with its preferred “green†sources of energy — wind, solar, and biofuel. “Now that the hydraulic fracturing and shale revolution has sent gas prices down to $2.50, the lobby fears natural gas will come to dominate U.S. energy production. At that price, the Sierra Club’s Valhalla of wind, solar, and biofuel power may never be competitive. So the green left has decided it must do everything it can to reduce the supply of gas and keep its price as high as possible.â€
The Sierra Club itself (after coming out in favor of Natural Gas) has a quote on its site:
“Fossil fuels have no part in America’s energy future – coal, oil, and natural gas are literally poisoning us. The emergence of natural gas as a significant part of our energy mix is particularly frightening because it dangerously postpones investment in clean energy at a time when we should be doubling down on wind, solar and energy efficiency.â€
—Robin Mann, Sierra Club President
Read my comments. You could have chosen to present the actual facts and initiate an honest discussion of whether Sierra Club was being hypocritical or not. But you didn't. You could have even presented an honestly biased opinion of Sierra Club's position. But you didn't do that either. Instead you chose to make things up and assign biased motives to the subjects of your post and even the commenters in order to push your particular views whether those views were supported by facts or not.
I understand that being provocative increases your income from the SkyWriter program, but there is an implied - and perhaps even contractual - obligation to be an honest broker in preparing your posts. You don't.
For that reason I generally ignore anything you write. I came here only because I saw a comment from Chris in my feed and stayed only to address some blatantly false statements by others.
Goodbye
Now perhaps we could discus my comment has to how our industrialized nations can run them without using fossil fuel keeping everyone who has a job in a job and feeding the masses, and keeping everyone warm in winter. 65 million in my country 313 million in your country 600 million in the rest of Europe, all with homes that have to have electricity.
We have an abundance of natural gas that we can get at, that would do all the things that I have stated yet the SC has turned from favouring this cleaner fuel to demonizing it. The sheer hypocrisy from them is outstanding.
It is obvious to anyone that their turn from this cleaner fuel that they endorsed not so long ago is to do with their perceived conjecture that it would harm their goal of an alternative energy. After considering all the facts to do with this gas they saw it as the biggest threat to their goal and quite rightly so because we see that its turning not only the way that America is now seeing alternative energy but Europe as well because we in Europe have trillions of natural gas that we can get at as well. It is cheaper, and more efficient than the millions up on millions of Wind Turbines that will have to be built and maintained. It must be very galling for them to see their dreams that they were so close to achieving just disappear in front of their very eyes, hence their now out and out attack on Gas.
Goodbye
Well seeing you will not answer any of the question sensibly, TTFN
My feelings were not hurt, nor are they sensitive. Frankly, I consider you laughable in your constant references to using violence and killing people in your military role. It's really up to your medical professionals and the UK military to decide whether a lifetime of your sort of activity is the reason for your actions and what might be considered violation of the military secrecy act and ethics. Those are not my concern and I wish you the best in finding a solution.
On the other hand, it is interesting that you have created this fantasy world in which you equate my desire that you and others stick to factual information and honesty with your rather obnoxious and ofttimes violent rhetorical sputum. I'm sure other readers can see the irony in that position.
As for "discussing your comment," it's really quite useless to "discuss" something you made up with no basis in fact or logic. Your comment is, in fact, completely baseless and generally quite divorced from reality. You've taken a desire to shift from a fossil fuel based energy system to one based on renewable and sustainable resources...and converted this reality into some absolutely insane and draconian desire to cause the deaths of millions of people.
In other words, your contention has no basis in reality.
And you've created this insane straw man for one reason only - because it helps you rationalize your denial of the scientific reasons for engaging in the discussion in the first place.
Frankly, when you can't start from honest and factual reality you can't expect others to waste their time "discussing" dishonest fantasy.
Example:
Crazy statement: "Elvis is alive and dressed as the Queen of England."
Response: "Umm, no. Elvis is dead. [Goes into long discourse presenting evidence of Elvis being dead.] Furthermore, the Queen is certainly not Elvis or anyone else in drag. [Goes into long discourse presenting evidence that the Queen is in fact the dignified and lovely in every way woman adored by her many subjects and others (even those in the former colonies).]
Crazy statement guy: "You're an idiot, Muppet, dimwit, dangerous, useless brain dead green that I wish I could knock some sense into your brain dead head. Elvis is alive and dressed as the Queen of England. Look, here's a blog." [Provides URL (without hotlinking it) to a conspiracy theory site that also claims the government secretly killed obnoxious bloggers.]
Response: "Okay then. Goodbye."
That's right on the button there is nothing wrong with exploiting our planets resources as long as we do it responsibly, that's how we manage to develop and survive and go on to achieve even greater things that we have done in the past.
Both fossil fuel and alternative fuel should run in conjuncture with one another that way we get the best out of them or in other words we get the best out of both worlds. I have mentioned in a comment above that I have invested in solar panels and it is in this method that we get the best of both worlds cheaper electricity in the summer months and because its linked to the national grid that uses fossil or nuclear to generate electricity we get an abundance of electricity that does not run out in the winter months when we need it to warm our homes.
Your comment about socialism is an interesting comment, socialism never works or if it does it does not work for long you only have to look at what my country becomes when we British vote in a Labour Government that is a socialist Government, the next Government that we usually vote in is a Conservative Government that has to put right all the mistakes that the Labour Government has made. Socialism is one step behind Communism not quite Communism but very close indeed, in fact our early Labour Politian's in the 20s were Communists that saw that they would never get into a position of power who then joined the newly developing Labour Party that had embraced parts but not all Communists ideology’s
Do Alaskans get some kind of incentive to embrace their natural resources?
I don't know that I would call the Sierra club hypocritical, as they have always been against any form of fossil fuel, and stating a lesser of evils isn't really a supportive position.
But on a side note, with the rising gasoline prices the speculators have taken a beating with the public some even suggesting that restrictions to trading of some form, but the speculators are also responsible for the drop in NG prices in our country and that drop is why NG is now providing some of the lowers energy prices in years.
"The front month futures price for natural gas — sold Monday for delivery in May — dropped to $2.10 per thousand cubic feet, down from $4.98 in June and more than $12 in July 2008."
Read more: http://newsok.com/natural-gas-prices-continue-to-fall-leaving-smaller-oklahoma-producers-more-vulnerable/article/3665032#ixzz1wix0pv30
Of course the hope of the extreme environmentalists is that fossil fuels continue to rise in price, causing a restriction of their use and to give renewables a chance in the marketplace, so when they see NG prices drop they have to react negatively.
Of course the hope of the extreme environmentalists is that fossil fuels continue to rise in price, causing a restriction of their use and to give renewables a chance in the marketplace, so when they see NG prices drop they have to react negatively. Yes, that is exactly right.
worldwide, definitely true. SIX TIMES more subsidies go to fossil fuels:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-09/fossil-fuels-got-more-aid-than-clean-energy-iea.html
in the USA? still true, but by a slightly smaller margin. tax dollars went to fossil fuel over renewable energy in the USA by a two to one margin in the time period of 2002-2008. And the Obama administration has not really been able to change that, despite the alarmism of the Republicans in Congress.
http://www.eli.org/Program_Areas/innovation_governance_energy.cfm
My answer, of course, is to end all subsidies and shrink and simplify the tax system as much as possible... which should be able to fit on a half-dollar size piece of paper, normal text size.
btw, I notice you regularly don't use the reply to comment feature. It's annoying, several people still do this. Please try to use it.
That's something I was wondering. I assume it's pretty much true but haven't researched it.
I love how liberals seem to think taking less of someone elses money is a subsidy.
Yep, it's crazy; but they sort of have a point, the effects of special, targeted tax breaks are similar to a subsidy. Taxes should be reduced for everyone, "evenly", rather than for certain groups.
Kind of like how they are screaming about "cuts" in the Rtyan budget plan, when in fact there are no actual cuts in funding, but rather a SLOW DOWn in annual increases.
Yep again. Which is why the Ryan budget is so lousy. If we're going to put up a fight, and get this kind of backlash, can we at least start by proposing something real and responsible?
The agency found that energy-related subsidies totaled $24 billion , of which $16 billion were spent on renewable energy and energy efficiency and $2.5 billion on fossil fuels in fiscal year 2011. In other words, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency programs received 6.4 times more subsidies than fossil fuels received. The ethanol industry, which received over $6 billion, was the single largest renewable energy recipient and the wind industry was the second largest renewable energy recipient, according to CBO.