President Obama's call for a reduction in fossil fuel subsidies elicited predictable cries of outrage from the American Petroleum Institute and others who have a vested financial interest in feeding our addiction to fossil fuels. Let's be clear, this addiction is killing us just as surely as tobacco causes cancer. And like the tobacco industry in decades past, the fossil fuel industry hopes you won't notice until it's too late.
The current debate about energy subsidies brings to mind Catch-22, Joseph Heller's 1961 novel about World War II, and the challenge of living in an inescapable conundrum:
...Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he were sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.
Being concerned about the real and immediate dangers of climate change should most certainly qualify you as "sane." CO2 and other greenhouse gases are warming the atmosphere, and the burning of fossil fuels is the primary source of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. It stands to reason we should be phasing out the use of fossil fuels. Not to mention the fact that our tax dollars are actually going to companies like ExxonMobil and BP to help keep the prices of oil, gas and coal artificially low. Sounds like "big government" to me. I wonder why the Tea Party isn't shouting from the rooftops about that one.
Here's the energy Catch-22, and it's just as warped and confusing as Joseph Heller's version:
Fossil fuels cause massive impacts on the environment and human health which leads to higher taxes and health care costs. Fossil fuels (and nuclear power for that matter) are artificially cheap because they enjoy billions of dollars of government subsidies, which also leads to higher taxes. Renewable energy receives a fraction of that amount in subsidies, and is creating new jobs which generate government income without having to raise taxes.
The fossil fuel industry is employing fewer people as a result of technological advances (PDF), which means less government income and therefore higher taxes. Cheap fossil fuels reduce incentives to use energy more efficiently, which makes businesses less competitive, which in turn costs jobs, which costs taxpayers money. Fossil fuel lobbyists argue that renewables are too costly to compete with other energy sources.
Catch-22, 1970
It is highly doubtful that Yossarian would have whistled respectfully about the Catch-22 of energy subsidies. It doesn't take a genius to see that phasing out the subsidized use of fossil fuels is a no-brainer for economic reasons, let alone all of the other benefits it would have. And if some of the money going to the energy giants is used to alleviate the burden on the poorest people, it would create a win/win situation for everyone (well, almost everyone).
President Obama is not the only leader calling for change. G20 leaders meeting in Pittsburgh in 2009 agreed:
To phase out and rationalize over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies while providing targeted support for the poorest. Inefficient fossil fuel subsidies encourage wasteful consumption, reduce our energy security, impede investment in clean energy sources and undermine efforts to deal with the threat of climate change.
Unfortunately, the G20 leaders still have a way to go before they fulfil this promise. Oil Change International recently conducted a review of G20 action to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. "The bottom line" according to the organization's Director Steve Kretzmann, "is that no subsidies have been removed as a result of the G20 commitment."
The US has the opportunity to be the hero of this story, by leading the world in breaking the Catch-22 of fossil fuel subsidies. And if there's one thing the climate needs right now it's heroes. If nothing else, won't you feel better knowing that your hard-earned money is not helping fuel the obscene profits of these corporate giants?
How do we send a message that it's time to end Big Oil and other fossil fuel subsidies so Clean Energy solutions can have a fighting chance?
Follow Kelly Rigg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kellyrigg
And, maybe the horse is one potential answer, here. When OPEC or whomever decide it's time to bleed the subject dry and kill him, and they open up the taps on Americans' wallets to the point of economic collapse, the people that still have a horse will be able to move about generally freely, while those stuck with cars dependent on gasoline or diesel derived from imported sources will generally be on foot unless they're pretty wealthy or on government stipend etc. Which is probably where we're all going to end up, unless we start doing some serious thinking and engineering of our own, and producing our own energy domestically. Will it be good for the environment? Well, hopefully, but there's more going on here than the welfare of some supposedly endangered fish.
Stop subsidizing fossil fuels and (I'm sorry) raise the taxes on oil. I know that's not a smart position to take politically, but Americans decide with their wallets. If heating and fueling bills increase (because the "big government" stops artificially lowering the prices) then Americans will start consuming energy more efficiently. As long as energy's cheap, we'll keep wasting it.
Fossil fuels are a finite resource. We know that. We also know that at some point viable alternatives must be found. Smart people don't wait until their car sputters and dies on the interstate to look at their gas gauge. Those couple of gallons you need to have delivered to your car to get moving again costs a whole lot more then what you could have paid if you'd been paying attention.
The sooner we adopt renewable energy, the better off we will be.
I just looked at your link again. The article indicated that the largest tax break fossil fuel companies get is the foreign tax credit which allow US companies to avoid being taxed twice on the same income, once in the country of origin and once again in the US.
The foreign tax credit is available to any US company with overseas operations, not just fossil fuel companies - but you probably already knew that. Right? You also probably knew that most countries have similar tax codes for their multinational companies as well.
Again, just the facts.
Yes, the fossil fuel industry receives subsidies to be sure, generally estimated to be about $10 billion a year as your link suggests. But the federal and state governments tax the sale of gasoline to the tune of $81 billion dollars a year. Add to that the coal severance tax levied by states, the federal and state income taxes paid by fossil fuel energy companies, and the federal and state taxes paid by the employees of fossil fuel companies, the taxes on natural gas levied by states, federal royalties levied on oil and natural gas, etc., etc. and it becomes apparent that fossil fuel companies are contributors to the federal coffers in a major, major way.
Just the facts.
Oh, and by the way, has it ever occurred to you that raising the price of fossil fuels is a regressive tax on the poor? Just asking.
The fact is, climate change hits poorer people disproportionately hard, as they have less resilience and fewer resources to adapt.