In the comments section [of The Michigan View], “Hugh McD” challenges Henry Payne’s assertions that alternative energy sources are uneconomical. McD says that fossil fuels received a $72 billion subsidy over a six-year period.
The source of McD’s statement is the Environmental Law Institute, admits that “green” energy gets a lot of green, even by the institute’s standards: $29 billion–and that for energy sources that supply well under 10 percent of the nation’s needs. In turn, that means alternative energy gets a disproportionate amount of subsidies, even by the institute’s standard.
By the way, the “$72 billion” claim sounds like there’s a lot of special money going to fossil fuel companies, but $15 billion of that comes from the Foreign Tax Credit, which is available not just to oil and gas companies, but to any business that is subject to foreign taxes. Another $14 billion is for a tax credit that the institute says is being phased out.
The institute points out that half of the subsidies for alternative energy goes towards ethanol, an energy source that “raises considerable questions about effects on climate.” So even people who want the U.S. government to decide what sources of energy we use have to admit that “alternative” doesn’t necessarily mean “green.”
As ethanol demonstrates, “green” energy can simply just be about “green”–as in using the power of government to enrich people in an green-industrial complex.
I’m with the reader “PlainTruth,” who wishes that “the debate would focus on eliminating all subsidies.”
From The Detroit News: http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/watercooler/index.php?blogid=1238