EIN News says, "Energy Subsidy Battle Reignites As Debt Deal Preserves Tax Breaks As U.S. Democrats' battle to cut oil-industry tax breaks as part of a debt deal ends in defeat today, environmentalists are charging GOP lawmakers with skewing a closely watched energy-subsidy study in order to inflate federal renewable supports relative to those for fossil fuels. (nytimes.com)".
Tracking the article to its source, it appears that government is subsidizing $18 billion per year to various energy sources. The Democrats/Communists/Socialists want it discontinued.
Every now and then even a Communist makes a good point.
My understanding is that many years ago energy sources were considered essential to the development of a high standard of living. It also appeared that energy supply was limited. This resulted in the idea that subsidies would be necessary to keep the energy companies going and not give up because of the ultimate exhaustion of supplies.
That situation is completely changed. The energy companies involved in petroleum, coal, and natural gas have developed techniques, which have resulted in availability of large quantities of these materials. The only inhibition for making these products more available to the public appears to be government restriction.
Consistent with previous experience that market forces are the best technique for development, the US government should get out of the business of subsidization. It is not necessary. Government should also get out of the restriction business and let these companies do their jobs. Let's also not forget that there should be no government subsidization for wind energy, solar, tides or anything else that might be considered "sustainable". Existing energy companies have demonstrated their capability to supply the public, and they will move to so-called "sustainable", if and when that requirement develops.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment