Final Debate

The new EV Hummer sold out in minutes. The consumer has already decided the gas engine is on its last legs. Might as well accept the future rather than continue to live in the past. It’s like supporting the coal industry when the world is moving past coal. Silly

 

People keep talking about Pennsylvania and Texas being impacted by Beijing Bidens oil and gas policy but seem to forget oil and gas in Colorado account for nearly 11 billion in wages in this state.

 

The Green New Deal is a government tax scam.

For the market to shift to other fuels as technology develops is the right way to add jobs and fuels without taxing the citizens. The market for renewable is growing quickly. Government interference always screws things up and makes any "solution" more expensive. Shutting down oil hurts the poor and leaves millions unemployed.

We have technology today to quickly produce crude oil out of algae, water and sunlight. That's one of the cool new technologies.

 

Yep. Colorado, Ohio, even California produces a lot of oil. But no one is worried about Biden losing CA.

Pennsylvania was one of the very close swing states.

Texas was right on the line of turning blue for the first time since the 1970's. Trump and Biden were tied in the polls here. Texas is safely red again. Thanks, Joe Biden!

 

I did expect it to be closer than 39 to 53.

 

Has anyone checked Biden's published plan?
Of course not.

 

~ Yes Colorado does more oil than California .

 

Bunch of fuzzy propaganda. Actual details would cost votes.

 

Hey, why is it that Biden stating an inconvenient truth (one time only) should cost him whole states, while Trump saying stupid stuff every day over four years doesn't cost him anything? Can I smell a double standard?

The reality is that anyone working in the oil industry today will be retired in 2050. By 2050, we better have moved away from oil, because you know what: IT IS NOT RENEWABLE. Why is it that conservatives always leave out that part when they claim our economy cannot survive without oil. Well, newsflash, if we can't survive without oil, we should put in extreme efforts to shake the oil addiction. What about this is hard to understand?

 

He's also said he wants to ban fracking, now says end the oil industry. Do you want to pay $8/gallon for gas? Who has enough yard space for the windmills and solar panels we'll need for our homes? How about millions out of work? Loss in revenue and taxes? This all goes back to the green new deal which America cannot afford. Telling profitable industries that support millions of families you're going to shut them down isn't winning any votes. What about this is so hard to understand?

 

Why is it hard to understand that The Green Deal is a heavy tax on citizens. Gasoline prices were more than double during the Obama administration due to his taxes on the oil industry. Oil companies pass the costs of added taxes to the consumer at the gas pump.

Technology and innovation is creating alternate fuels. Let the markets work and keep the government the heck out of it.

Plus we are making crude from algae without drilling. That's really cool!



https://www.fool.com/investing/gene...t-youve-heard-oil-and-gas-are-actually-r.aspx

 

Exactly what is this oil subsidy? If you are talking about depletions, that is a normal for any business. They buy land with oil as the oil is removed, the land is worth less. That is called depreciation which is allowed in any other business.

 

Then someone needs to create a viable alternative. Wishing it doesn’t make it so and it sure as hell doesn’t justify moving us off oil until there IS a viable alternative.

 

Right. Dummies in France voted in Macron who campaigned heavily on a "green planet". Then he raised gasoline taxes and working-class people from rural areas couldn't afford the gasoline to drive to and from work.

Democrat policies always harm the poor. They don't care about the working class, except to enslave people to poverty.

 

Every year, in it's annual energy issue, the Economist suggests we dump the oil subsidies and get a Carbon Tax. There's a number of them, if you have questions about them, google is your friend.

 

Ummm, no.

First, biofuels are still carbon. Actually, they emit more carbon because you have to factor in production.

Second, some analysts doubt demand for oil will ever go back to where it was.

Third, unless oil prices are quite high, biofuels cost too much to be profitable.

Fourth, which type of biofuel doesn't matter, ramping production up to a significant level with any of them is going to cause serious problems.

 

They are all expenses just like any other business. The two possible exceptions are no fees for drilling on federal land and subsidy for ethanol. That is hardly a subsidy for the oil industry.

 

Fine with me, I never said that oil cannot be made in other ways than it is today, i.e. extracting from the ground what mother nature has stored for us for 100s of millions of years. Now, biofuels will have an issue with EROI, which is not higher, or lower than other renewables. Look up that term, if you don't know it yet. It is very enlightening.

 

Because they all get access to their raw materials for free?

"The United States provides a number of tax subsidies to the fossil fuel industry as a means of encouraging domestic energy production. These include both direct subsidies to corporations, as well as other tax benefits to the fossil fuel industry. Conservative estimates put U.S. direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry at roughly $20 billion per year; with 20 percent currently allocated to coal and 80 percent to natural gas and crude oil.

Today, U.S. taxpayer dollars continue to fund many fossil fuel subsidies that are outdated, but remain embedded within the tax code. At a time when renewable energy technology is increasingly cost-competitive with fossil power generation, and a coordinated strategy must be developed to mitigate climate change, the broader utility of fossil fuel subsidies is being questioned.

There are many kinds of costs associated with fossil fuel use in the form of greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution resulting from the extraction and burning of fossil fuels. These negative externalities have adverse environmental, climate, and public health impacts, and are estimated to have totaled $5.3 trillion globally in 2015 alone.

Subsidizing an industry with such large, negative impacts is difficult to justify."
https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fa...-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs

 

Ummm...huh? That is EXACTLY subsidies for big oil

 

That is correct, wishing doesn't create a viable alternative. Neither does wishing oil would last forever. That's why ANY government subsidies should go to alternative energy sources rather than oil, TO MAKE THEM VIABLE FOR THE FUTURE as quickly as possible. Oil is NON-RENEWABLE, capisce?

 

Good deal. Oil transition is happening naturally. Only idiots for governments to tax oil.

I'm happy!

 

Is pledge to end subsidies to oil won't play well on corn belt states as ethanol is hugely subsidized

 

We provide Federal subsidies to Big Oil. There's nothing "natural" about that

Remove those subsidies and that "natural transition" speeds up.

Shift those subsidies to renewables and it happens even faster.

And don't pretend that renewable energy doesn't require labor and jobs

 

Wouldn't that subsidy be considered "socialism"?

I guess "my socialism" is OK huh?