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

^ ^ ^ ?

 

I'm fairly certain I've read it before where that was the claim. I'm not going to spend more time looking at this moment. If people want to follow the money, I'd say a claim in the trillions is worth following. That is all.

 

First the cows eat it, then the pigs eat it and then the chickens eat it. I love my scrambled eggs. I never buy sweetcorn in the summer. I just rent it.

 

Listen here now. There’s no defense with facts. Just like listening to the science. Facts aren’t really facts you know. It’s just go along with a narrative and believe it or else. I’m appalled at how you question people and the narrative.

 

Trillions of dollars are facts and worth "following the money" whether people like it or not.

 

Well. Some of the “facts” are really opinion. For example, in one of the articles you provided it talks about some of the fossil fuel subsidies being for a technology called “carbon capture”. It is my understanding that some are convinced that if we burn fossil fuels, we must somehow capture the carbon dioxide and store it deep underground because carbon dioxide is a so called greenhouse gas that makes the planet warmer. Perhaps that is true. Perhaps it isn’t. If it’s true then sure, carbon capture subsidies could help reflect the “true cost” of burning fossil fuels. But at this point, I still think that is just opinion. I know the trees growing in my backyard like carbon dioxide. I personally don't think carbon capture subsidies should be classified as fossil fuel subsidies. I think they fall under the “climate change” industry which I think should have its subsidies tracked separately. I am also of the opinion that the climate change industry is based on varying amounts of science and fear. It has been said that WE are the carbon that THEY want to reduce.

 

Yessir

 

Just think about this. We were using whale oil long ago for energy. Almost eradicated the whales. We found new ways to produce energy. Narratives have pushed those to the side for the narrative of the day. Every time technology advances and better energy is developed the “carbon footprint” decreases but it’s never enough for the narrative. So the narrative changes to other agendas. The new narrative actually has a much larger “carbon footprint” than what it’s trying to replace and not getting the job accomplished. All those facts are out there. I could spend days giving out sources of information, all factual, but if someone is so hellbent on believing the narrative it’s really a waste of my time. You’ll never get anyone to accept the fact that maybe their beliefs in their narrative might be wrong and if you do there’s zero chance of them admitting that you might be just a little bit right.

 

I never speak in absolutes. I remain open to ideas that other people share. Conversely, I truly believe that some people out there just need a bit of information to open their eyes. Many are set in their ways. Some can see the light.

 

I believe the individual in question to be a reasonable person. I distinctly remember them saying a while back that they didn't buy into THE END IS NEAR hype, which is a good starting point if any effective communication is to happen. To your point too, I think we could all use a little more information.

 

OMG…too funny, the circularity of this narrative is mind numbingly dizzying.

 

How so?

 

Are you confusing industry with individual company?

Agreed! You need to add them up.

Agreed! But we might be talking about a different “someone”. Did you or Eric Wanderweg add them up? If you did you’d find that the top industry from the RCBS list is in fact Energy/Gas/Oil.

It’s funny that people here are using a data source to dunk on jrider when it supports his statement. Also, who cares? Does anyone disagree that they get massive subsidies?

 

JiminyKicket I’m not dunking on anybody. Economically speaking, I don’t exactly fit into the binary ideological box we all get herded like cattle into. When it comes to corporate welfare, I’m a free market guy. If a company can’t stand on its own two feet (doesn’t matter to me if they’re mining lithium or pumping crude) I don’t think they should be propped up indefinitely by either taxpayer money or more deficit spending. I’m not a fan of the top-down centrally planned economic model. It’s inefficient, wasteful, and doesn’t adapt well to changes in market conditions. As far as who gets the most corporate welfare, all I can do is laugh about how we even got to this point as a nation. Some people like the idea of showering certain industries with Monopoly money, as long as it’s one of “their” industries. I’m not one of those people

 

To me, “improving” the post from tree killer and agreeing with it constitutes dunking. I was surprised you jumped on the bandwagon. You are usually respectful to everyone in the forum (as evidenced by your subsequent post).

Re: the rest of your post, I didn’t say anything about your or anyone’s position on subsidies.

 

The only thing I agreed with tree killer on was the sentiment that it’s strange to single out one industry as the boogeyman, when clearly by that list there is a large army of beggars wearing suits that are bleeding the budget dry. I didn’t agree with his thinking that he had a “gotcha” moment that would completely shift someone else’s perspective on any complex issue. Thinking about it further, considering what’s made from every barrel of crude besides fuel, it kind of makes sense that they get the biggest handout. Fertilizer, plastics, an almost unfathomable amount of chemicals and base products that go into all sorts of everyday goods in all kinds of industries. The US has built this gargantuan economic engine based largely on oil. Its going to take many decades to come up with alternative sources for a lot of raw materials (which may or may not be greener in the long run anyway) Its so much bigger than tailpipe and power plant emissions.

 

Well said.

 

Agree; very well typed Eric Wanderweg!
I started the whale oil and horse manure comments because I have read about them.
I also know that in Australia 30 years ago you could fill your car with propane at a gas station. The kits were about A$1,200 dollars to adapt it in.

As a business major I made a few contacts and tried to start business in Vermont; a well known bastion of environmental concerns. Learned real FAST about govt red tape.
A hard No.. why? Cheaper, better for environment no I didn’t hire environmentalists; asked a question.
Who has eaten food off propane grill? Everyone, does anyone cook over exhaust pipes?

Old business guy gave me reason
Every one with a garage would fill up at home.. so no gas taxes
Vermont city buses now run off propane

 

I took the statement at face value—not a boogeyman or gotcha comment. But it ticked off a few people so, hey, maybe I misinterpreted it.

I appreciate the thoughtful reply. I figured you’d be the one to respond.

 

Switchgrass and algae are more efficient than getting ethanol from corn. The thing is anyone can grow corn and sell if fur multiple uses. Switchgrass not so much, and algae would/ should be the king, but they need to implement that better. Toms of wastewater treatment plants that should be using this and contributing algae to make into ethanol. I think there are a couple of Hurdles to making ethanol with algae. While the company I work for sells pumps of all streets, even for the waste water industry, I've forgotten s few of the details about it.
After many years of debating about it, I've cube to this conclusion.
Corn shouldn't be used for anything except making booze.