TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC

US Oil & Subsidies

Discussion in 'Energy, Environment, and Policy' started by hcsharp, May 1, 2012.

  1. SageBrush

    SageBrush 2018: Drain the Sewer

    Joined:
    May 7, 2015
    Messages:
    7,556
    Location:
    New Mexico
    "Help" is a political statement. Academics is a pursuit of knowledge and understanding. They contribute all the time ... when people are ready to listen.
     
  2. nwdiver

    nwdiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2013
    Messages:
    5,069
    Location:
    United States
    Save your breathe. The morons of the world will only be convinced there was a problem once everything is burned to ash. It's pathetic. You can't fix the stupidity of locked ideology.... meanwhile the world burns. Truly pathetic. They betray their families, their country and the planet... for what? A fancy loud car? It's sick.

    Too bad the climate doesn't have an 'ignore' feature....

     
  3. lklundin

    lklundin Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    2,071
    Location:
    Munich
    I am projecting the effects of the last 18 months of the uncapped, decreasing federal tax credit, you are apparently commenting on something else.
     
  4. rays427

    rays427 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages:
    314
    Location:
    Penn Valley, CA
    No I don't think there are 130,000 professors in the field but that means there are some making a bit more than $100,000. My actual point is $13 billion spent on climate change research is by no means chump change. It shows that pushing climate change disaster is very lucrative.
     
  5. SageBrush

    SageBrush 2018: Drain the Sewer

    Joined:
    May 7, 2015
    Messages:
    7,556
    Location:
    New Mexico
    Look up Prof salaries. Go on, I dare you.

    Are you really so deluded that you think the Trumper talking point is money in their pockets !?
    I'll bet a handsome sum that the $13B is the total federal involvement in Atmospheric and Earth Science research ... if not other things thrown in too.
     
  6. rays427

    rays427 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages:
    314
    Location:
    Penn Valley, CA
    I agree there is global warming but I don't believe it is all caused by man and don't think it will be catastrophic. As and example take a look back to the 1930's it was as hot or hotter in the US than today. So what caused the increase at that time? By the way here is the history of wildfires in the US: National Interagency Fire Center. Please note that the amount of acres burned in 1930 was about 5 times what burned in 2017. Not only were more acres burned but there where more fires in the past before the rapid increase in CO2.
     
  7. SageBrush

    SageBrush 2018: Drain the Sewer

    Joined:
    May 7, 2015
    Messages:
    7,556
    Location:
    New Mexico
    It is overwhelmingly fossil fuel combustion driven and IT WILL be catastrophic. It already is, and it is going to get much worse. Year by year, with very little respite ... perhaps just enough to keep the denialism going for a while longer.

    Your opinions about AGW are about as informed as your presumption that $13B a year is spent by the federal govt on AGW researcher salaries.
     
    • Like x 1
  8. Brando

    Brando Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2016
    Messages:
    2,126
    Location:
    Bainbridge Island, WA
    Sadly many of those fires started by people desperate for jobs - fighting fires - we had more forest then and I'm still not sure more. Sure we have less forest now than 1930s anyway. yes, complex - sadly living on a very small farm (no the sad part;)) loss of bees, hummingbirds, small birds, insects - even ant populations down - how can that happen?? NO chemicals (nor fertilizers) used here for at least 18 years. scary.
     
  9. rays427

    rays427 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages:
    314
    Location:
    Penn Valley, CA
    Here is the History of spending on Climate change per the GAO. (Key Issues: Climate Change Funding and Management) Notice on the graph that most of the amount is for science and technology. I guess it depends on what you consider research. In addition per the GAO expenditures in 2017 were $13.2 billion.
     
    • Helpful x 1
  10. nwdiver

    nwdiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2013
    Messages:
    5,069
    Location:
    United States
    #70 nwdiver, Aug 27, 2018
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2018
    Cognitive dissonance and ignorance; the true antidote to anything even remotely resembling intelligent thought or critical thinking.....


    [​IMG]
     
    • Informative x 1
  11. Brando

    Brando Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2016
    Messages:
    2,126
    Location:
    Bainbridge Island, WA
    Changing the oceans for better or worse takes a long time. Not really sure how will help oceans return to lower acidity and lower temperatures - very depressing. Orcas and Salmon and Oysters/Clams and starfish are the most obvious losses here in the Puget Sound. But all sea life way down including Kelp.
     
  12. TheTalkingMule

    TheTalkingMule Distributed Energy Enthusiast

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2012
    Messages:
    2,692
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    Always amazes me to hear someone say they "believe" that the planet is warming(as if actual measurements of temperature are subject to belief or disbelief), but that it's certainly not man-made. I have much more respect for folks who feel the base measurements are a fraudulent conspiracy.

    CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Our entire human society is currently based on emitting CO2. I think it boils down to human beings inability to fully fathom what 840,000,000 gallons of crude oil PER DAY looks like. That's a lot of CO2....just from oil alone....every day.....just in the US.
     
  13. darrelld

    darrelld Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2016
    Messages:
    171
    Location:
    North Texas
    The Military Cost of Defending Global Oil Supplies

    At minimum, approximately $81 billion per year is spent by the U.S. military protecting global oil supplies. This is approximately 16 percent of recent DoD base budgets. Spread out over the 19.8 million barrels of oil consumed daily in the U.S. in 2017, the implicit subsidy for all petroleum consumers is approximately $11.25 per barrel of crude oil, or $0.28 per gallon. A more extensive estimate by two highly-regarded economists suggests the costs could be greater than $30 per barrel, or over $0.70 per gallon.
     
    • Like x 2

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.
  • Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


    SUPPORT TMC