Quote:
Originally Posted by DrModern
If you think putting the majority of "our" efforts toward renewable energy alternatives makes sense, I suggest investing in companies that are working on renewable energy technologies, contributing to renewable energy subsidies directly, or any number of entrepreneurial actions. But why is your determination that renewable energy is preferable supposed to be valid for others who have different sets of priorities and preferences?
Well the point is that until we throw out our whole system of govt (coming soon I'm sure), our tax dollars will continue to go toward energy extraction and generation (in the form of tax breaks, subsidies, govt funded studies, govt taking on risk, etc). When you do the math and consider something like a 100 year timeline and how we will be poised for the future, renewable energy just makes tons more economic and political stability sense. If you look at a 20-year profit window, maybe fossil fuel makes more sense. Which do you think our kids and grandkids would rather us look at? If you're running out of food, how much time and energy do you spend buying food from your neighbors, or frantically searching the house for every last morsel, before you consider planting some seeds?
Quote:
Furthermore, why would you expect that a profit-hungry oil company would undertake an unprofitable venture? If the harm in allowing drilling is supposed to be that it causes damage to the environment, a good that people value, a simple solution is to price the right to drill in accordance with the magnitude of the environmental harm.
I don't understand your point. A subsidy means we give them money or some kind of other break to explore and drill. Maybe we're charging them a price to drill, but we're giving them so many breaks in other areas it's a net loss for the US govt on a lot of ventures. I don't think anyone is really disputing that the fossil fuel industry gets tons subsidies now, which leads one to question the overall profitability of extracting the not-so-low-hanging fruit that we have left in terms of oil reserves.
Quote:
Even if the venture requires a subsidy to be undertaken, if it improves overall social welfare, why should the mere fact of requiring a subsidy change our views? Presumably you find other government-subsidized public goods perfectly acceptable on precisely the same grounds (maximization of social welfare).
Because oil is a diminishing resource, and all other things being equal we will be in better position for the future if we put our govt initiatives toward renewable energy. Getting off foreign oil is good. Getting off a very finite resource like fossil fuel entirely is better.
I am willing to admit that there could be a case where an oil subsidy makes the most overall sense for the country - but I sure would like to see a more sweeping renewable plan in place first, so that the oil is just a bridge to get us to sustainability.