I'm not so sure I agree with their study.

It is for those that need to believe it.

 

Agreed.

 

I don’t think one can tell based on that website. That is highest subsidies by company. It is possible that fossil fuels are the highest. But I haven’t seen a source. Now if we look at the importance of an industry to our survival, society and national defense, one could look likely argue that inexpensive reliable natural gas is more important than $300 basketball shoes. But I guess that would also depend on who pays your salary to put food on your table and a roof over your head.

 

Seems to me one of the reasons for ethanol was to replace lead in the gas had to due with octane rating. I do not condone it -hate the stuff. Been nothing but a pia for me. If it wasn't subsidized it wouldn't be in our tanks.

 

Or more...

 

Yeah, I guess that will put a damper on someone’s philosophy if they choose to read it.

 

If you add all the companies up then maybe. Individual no where near.

 

It may be; I am hoping this thread turns into a learning thread not a I am right you’re wrong thread.
My question is you also have to consider what did it replace as a fuel source?

before standard oil (Rockefeller) our heat sources were coal and wood. Causing many problems with a smaller population
Oil lamps used whale oil in north east anyway, leading to their almost extinction

the reason brownstone in NYC where built with a six foot set of stairs was horse manure was piled in street!

 

I'm trying really hard not to stir that hornet's nest right now, but I don't disagree with you.

 

Lead was replaced with BTEX.
One component of BTEX is benzene, which is complicated with a number of health concerns.
Ethanol has been phased in since the oil embargo in 74/75/. Ethanol can help with lower amounts of BTEX used in most if not all fuel blends.
states and regions have varying blends of ethanol and BTEX to boost octane and lower tailpipe emissions. These seasonally varying blends often contribute to varying prices and availability of fuels across different areas of the country.
It's a complicated mess with no realistic one-size-fits-all solution. So far.


Ethanol from corn was supposed to be a temporary ( we can implement it today) solution until the ag community came up with a better source for ethanol. Y'all know how temporary is sometimes, especially when large sums of money and politics are involved.

 

Some people just preach the narrative of the day for an agenda. Agendas do not always coincide with the masses in the truth. Agendas are usually made by people in power either politically or financially and agendas never benefit the average persons but instead excel the elite. Some people will stand by the agendas and narratives no matter how much destruction it causes themselves.

 

Originally lead was added to gas to boost octane and make a buffer in the valves of an engine prolonging valve life in a time when 20,000 miles was like a million today on an engine. Technology has helped immensely on engine life, taking lead out of gas lowered octane and ethanol hasn’t raised it back to where it once was.

 

The octane rating of ethanol is 109. You can add a rather low octane petroleum based fuel to this to have a net 87/89/92 octane fuel.

 

Dang you RCBS and your facts..

 

Yes octane is high but a lesser quality of fuel.

 

So I took a look and gas isn't near the top. Then I took a look at what "subsidy" meant and that is a long list. They are using both state and fed programs including grants and property tax waivers/reductions (such as states use to entice a business in so they have employment for their people). It also includes grants, rebates and financing/loans that need to be repaid.

There are a lot of things lumped into the term subsidy. In fact, I would be hard pressed to find any individual that would not be getting some sort of subsidy, or direct benefit from said subsidy, under that list; any type of credit or deductions on taxes (federal or local), grants (local bridges/roads, town equipment, school lunches, tuition), loans, reimbursement of taxes (feds will take state taxes off you fed taxes - that is reimbursement) etc.

Once I got to thinking about it, it's mind boggling and makes my head hurt.

 

https://www.reuters.com/business/en...dies-rise-despite-calls-phase-out-2023-11-23/
Fact Sheet | Fossil Fuel Subsidies: A Closer Look at Tax Breaks and Societal Costs (2019) | White Papers | EESI

 

I don’t see in those articles where it addresses the fossil fuel subsidies in relation to other industry subsidies. How many subsidies does the transportation industry receive? Or big pharma through government healthcare drug payments? What specific cuts would you recommend to the fossil fuel subsidies? Have you contacted your elected officials with your recommendations?

 

There are other articles I've read through the years. This is what I came up with in a 2 minute search. I don't have recommendations and I haven't contacted elected officials. I'm just making the claim that the fossil fuel industry receives huge amounts of money from the government. Can the opposite claim be said? And I have no agenda. I am not pulling for one horse or the other. I am following the money.

 

You said that the fossil fuel industry receives the more subsidies than any other industry on the planet. I was simply looking for a source to back that claim. If you are changing that to the fossil fuel industry receives huge amounts of money from the government, I don’t dispute that as the links you provided seem to confirm that and I don’t need another source.