America First Energy Policy

[quade 4]

brenthutch

Net net, renewables are a drain and oil and gas give back more than they receive. But of course that is math, not your strong suit.

Oh? Please show us your work.

LET'S GET MATHY, PEOPLE!

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[brenthutch 444]

Here are your "big oil" subsidies

"The single largest expenditure is just over $1 billion for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is designed to protect the U.S. from oil shortages. The second largest category is just under $1 billion in tax exemptions for farm fuel. The justification for that tax exemption is that fuel taxes pay for roads, and the farm equipment that benefits from the tax exemption is technically not supposed to be using the roads. The third largest category? $570 million for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. (This program is classified as a petroleum subsidy because it artificially reduces the price of fuel, which helps oil companies sell more of it). Those three programs account for $2.5 billion a year in "oil subsidies."

Oil Subsidies that Liberals Love
So why do we still have fossil fuel subsidies? Because almost nobody -- not even Bill McKibben -- wants to get rid of all of the programs that are classified as fossil fuel subsidies. I suspect McKibben would not advocate eliminating the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Two of the most outspoken Democratic opponents of oil subsidies have strongly defended this particular program -- even though it is classified by the OECD as the 3rd largest petroleum subsidy. When Republicans tried to cut funding for the program, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called the proposal an "extreme idea" that would "set the country backwards." Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass, states on his website that he is a "longtime Congressional champion of providing assistance to low-income families to heat and cool their homes."

[quade 4]

I think you've misunderstood. I want to see YOUR math.

You said bill wasn't very good at it. I think we ought to be allowed to see YOUR work.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[gowlerk 2,277]

brenthutch

Net net, renewables are a drain and oil and gas give back more than they receive. But of course that is math, not your strong suit.

So, does that mean to say that you are so blind that you can not see the extra costs (drain) of resource extraction? Do you think that only oil patch and coal mining jobs count, and that renewables don't bring employment?

Of course thinking outside of a narrow ideological viewpoint is not your strong suit.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[brenthutch 444]

My math is self evident. I want to see Bill's and your magical thinking.

[quade 4]

brenthutch

My math is self evident.

I think you're confusing self-evident with nonexistent.

Dude, just admit you made a statement as fact with absolutely nothing whatsoever to back it up with.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[brenthutch 444]

Prove me wrong, before I have to waste my time. BillV made the assertion, let him prove it.

[quade 4]

brenthutch

Prove me wrong, before I have to waste my time.

That's not how it works. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

You made the claim;

Quote

Net net, renewables are a drain and oil and gas give back more than they receive.

You need to show us where that comes from. It is not, "self evident."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,120]

>Net net, renewables are a drain . . .

Ah, alternative facts. Gotta love them.

It will be a fun four years.

[brenthutch 444]

Fair warning, I am setting you up for a smackdown. If you want to fall into my hole (again), be my guest.

[yoink 321]

brenthutch

That is what I am talking about; a slight relaxing of overburdensome regulations. Zero downside, thousands of jobs and reduced energy prices for everyone.

Why do I suspect that you're less concerned about reduced energy prices and more that it'll make you some money in a more direct way?

What stake do you have in the industry?

[brenthutch 444]

None, I have a military retirement, a corporate retirement, several rentals and beer and gas money from running a small drop zone. I am not involved with any oil/gas/coal interests in any way. I am advocating on behalf of the American people as I see it. I have two young children I want them to have a better world than the one I inherited.

[gowlerk 2,277]

I just don't see the thousands of jobs and lower prices coming from any "slight relaxing of overburdensome regulations." There are not that many restrictions on production, and even on consumption only coal has been seriously impacted, and it would be down anyway.

BTW, I hold shares in both Exxon and BP. Because I like dividend stocks and I don't see an end to the petroleum industry anytime soon.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[brenthutch 444]

Tell that to the hard hats that will be working on the newly approved Keystone and Dakota pipelines.

[gowlerk 2,277]

brenthutch

Tell that to the hard hats that will be working on the newly approved Keystone and Dakota pipelines.

The Dakota pipeline is already built except for the Missouri River crossing. And a large portion of Keystone is built as well. Neither will result in the wonderous new era of boom times you have been touting. They are both good things that will reduce transportation risk and increase profit levels. But they won't lower prices for consumers. Not even a little.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[DJL 235]

brenthutch

Fair warning, I am setting you up for a smackdown. If you want to fall into my hole (again), be my guest.

This is getting dirty.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[Phil1111 1,183]

brenthutch

Tell that to the hard hats that will be working on the newly approved Keystone and Dakota pipelines.

Well i agree with trump on these ideas. Even infinite monkey theorem, i.e. trump theory. Will get things right occasionally.

[normiss 898]

Bulldozers should show up in the next few days to finish it as well, Trump is signing the paperwork to finish DAPL today, according to reports.

[brenthutch 444]

It might not lower gas prices, but according to James Hanson who is a Climate Scientist says approval is the Keystone pipeline would result in..

"..the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk...
the Western United States and the semi-arid region from North Dakota to Texas will develop semi-permanent drought, with rain, when it does come, occurring in extreme events with heavy flooding. Economic losses would be incalculable. More and more of the Midwest would be a dust bowl. California’s Central Valley could no longer be irrigated. Food prices would rise to unprecedented levels." Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

I guess we will find out.

Did I mention that James Hanson is a Climate Scientist, yes CLIMATE SCIENTISTS

[gowlerk 2,277]

brenthutch

It might not lower gas prices, but according to James Hanson who is a Climate Scientist says approval is the Keystone pipeline would result in..

"..the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk...
the Western United States and the semi-arid region from North Dakota to Texas will develop semi-permanent drought, with rain, when it does come, occurring in extreme events with heavy flooding. Economic losses would be incalculable. More and more of the Midwest would be a dust bowl. California’s Central Valley could no longer be irrigated. Food prices would rise to unprecedented levels."

I guess we will find out.

Did I mention that James Hanson is a Climate Scientist, yes CLIMATE SCIENTISTS

Could you possibly link to where he said that so that we can see it in context? It looks like a description of the possible worse case scenario outcome of climate change. Not like the outcome of one project. It is just as wrong to use his words this way as it would be wrong for him to claim that.

No one advances their argument in any significant way when they engage in extreme hyperbole.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[Royreader8812 0]

Big oil is short term.

Solar is very rapidly becoming the most cost effective form of energy.

Coal, oil, gas and nuclear are all going up in price. Solar is going down rapidly.

As electric cars become mainstream and solar cells continue to fall in price a lot faster than what was predicted...

We get a shift from oil that will affect our society much more than anyone is willing to acknowledge.

Oil will always be, but from next year you can get a car for $35k that will drive you further than a tank of gas and be charged from the sun at your house overnight. Yes by the sun overnight via your captured energy in batteries, why then would you pay the same amount for a car that you have to waste time and money at a gas station?

The shift to renewables is going to be massive because it is not about being a hippy or a geek anymore, it is about saving money.

It is an American company driving this change faster too.

[Phil1111 1,183]

gowlerk

***It might not lower gas prices, but according to James Hanson who is a Climate Scientist says approval is the Keystone pipeline would result in..

"..the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk...
the Western United States and the semi-arid region from North Dakota to Texas will develop semi-permanent drought, with rain, when it does come, occurring in extreme events with heavy flooding. Economic losses would be incalculable. More and more of the Midwest would be a dust bowl. California’s Central Valley could no longer be irrigated. Food prices would rise to unprecedented levels."

I guess we will find out.

Did I mention that James Hanson is a Climate Scientist, yes CLIMATE SCIENTISTS

Could you possibly link to where he said that so that we can see it in context? It looks like a description of the possible worse case scenario outcome of climate change. Not like the outcome of one project. It is just as wrong to use his words this way as it would be wrong for him to claim that.

No one advances their argument in any significant way when they engage in extreme hyperbole.

Agree. you hurt yourself when extreme hyperbole borders on lying. Sort of https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Trumpesque

[yoink 321]

gowlerk

***It might not lower gas prices, but according to James Hanson who is a Climate Scientist says approval is the Keystone pipeline would result in..

"..the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk...
the Western United States and the semi-arid region from North Dakota to Texas will develop semi-permanent drought, with rain, when it does come, occurring in extreme events with heavy flooding. Economic losses would be incalculable. More and more of the Midwest would be a dust bowl. California’s Central Valley could no longer be irrigated. Food prices would rise to unprecedented levels."

I guess we will find out.

Did I mention that James Hanson is a Climate Scientist, yes CLIMATE SCIENTISTS

Source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinion/game-over-for-the-climate.html

[DJL 235]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinion/game-over-for-the-climate.html

He said it in reference to the Canadian Tar Sands and if Canada were to fully exploit the new tar sands while we "continue to burn our conventional oil, gas, and coal supplies..."

The only statement in the article about the pipeline is that instituting a carbon fee gets paid to America and somehow correlates to the pipeline becoming superfluous.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[gowlerk 2,277]

Yes, that article is written in a way that puts the worst of all possibilities out in front and then makes you dig down for the qualifiers. As I read it he says that if all of the Canadian deposits plus similar American deposits were burnt it would raise the CO2 levels to 500ppm and bring on this scenario.

Poorly written, but it does not make the claims that brenthutch says it does. But nonetheless it is a use of scare tactics and not a good way to convince anyone.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.