re: Renewable energy becoming so cheap US will meet Paris commitments even if Trump withdraws

Try this one Machine.

Did you even read your article or did some libtard reference you to it?

quote:

---

Similarly, several measures to aid oil companies passed in the early 1900s remain of key importance to the industry, Healey notes. These include one provision passed in 1916 to speed up depreciation of drilling costs. A second one, the oil depletion allowance, which became law in 1926, gives oil companies a tax break for depleting an oil reservoir. President Obama has sought to end these breaks but has been overwhelmed by the opposition from industry and its congressional allies.

---

Every date I gave you was before 1916 except the East Texas strike of 1930!

Both your earliest examples are NOT subsidies! May I suggest you go to a library and check out an economics 101 text book!

As a progressive/socialist here's a freebie:
sub·si·dy
's?bs?de/
noun
1.
a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
"a farm subsidy"

Or in plain English the government takes taxes from other tax payers and gives it to a favored business. Example: Obama giving some of your tax money to Solyndra and they piss away over a half billion dollars!

Now in your example, in 1916, the government allowed them to accelerate their depreciation on equipment. This allows them to claim expenses already spent a little faster than some shite for brains politician thought they should have originally.

Letting a person or company keep more of their earnings is NOT a subsidy!

Nice try though. Machine at the plate, count is 0-1, swing and a miss!

quote:

---

Uh.. are you forgetting the tax breaks and subsidies that started in like 1915? Not to mention the energy subsidies and land grants in timber and coal in the 1800s

---

No I didn't! Do you think a tax break and a subsidy are the same thing?
Did you notice that the natural gas industry started about 100 years before your "like 1915" erroneous date?
Did you also not try this math. 1916 - 1859 = 57. Get a calculator man! Free-market forces have brought basic models to one dollar. I guess you're waiting for a free-shite government subsidized one!

So long before the rise of the Progressives in early 1900s, real men created a revolutionary industry from scratch by working hard for 60+ years.

It takes a village to raise an idiot, congratulations bmy for spouting "fake moronic facts"!

quote:

---

Another person that skipped the class on negative externalities

---

Ah! A social Marxist economist!
How about this? A socialist like you, takes over half billion tax dollars from profitable enterprises, and gives it to Solyndra to piss it away.
What were the social consequences for those that got nothing for something?
What were the social cost of those who could have maybe done something with the something for nothing pissed away by politicians that know even less than a Marxist economist?
What was the cost of the lost economic opportunities of the proven successful enterprises?

Hard to find a job in the old Soviet block, comrade?

quote:

---

No I didn't! Do you think a tax break and a subsidy are the same thing?
Did you notice that the natural gas industry started about 100 years before your "like 1915" erroneous date?

---

1915 was for oil subsidies in the U.S.

Also, tax breaks are subsidies.. at the least they accomplish the same thing. A higher bottom line for company X.

Sounds like a win win for America and paris supporters.

We meet the the requirements of the Paris Climate deal and still keep our money in the United States of America and they get the USA honoring the deal without actually being a part of it.

The Paris Deal was nothing more than a glorified welfare redistribution scam and we had lefties on here shilling for it.

How many wind turbines would it take to power America if we relied on wind alone?

quote:

---

To answer that question, AWEA's manager of industry data analysis, John Hensley, did the following math: 4.082 billion megawatt-hours (the average annual US electricity consumption) divided by 7,008 megawatt-hours of annual wind energy production per wind turbine equals approximately 583,000 onshore turbines.

In terms of land use, those 583,000 turbines would take up about the total land mass of Rhode Island, Hensley says, because wind projects typically require 0.74 acres of land per megawatt produced.

---

His math was done assuming 40% efficiency for each turbine, which is a higher efficiency than coal or solar.

Why don't we just go to nuclear and call it a day?

quote:

---

Are you under the impression that coal and natural gas plants don't require expensive maintenance also?

---

Are you under the impression that they are comparable?

You can get into semantic pissing matches but when you confer a set of tax code benefits to only a select group of people, there is not much functional difference.

You could add a layer of bureaucracy and collect the tax and then make a direct cash payment to the selected group, or you can decide to just not tax a part of their income and produce essentially the same thing.

There are trade offs in both scenarios but you are functionally aiming for the same thing.

Gaspergous owning motherfrickin communists up in this bitch.

Left right left right and down goes Vladimir!