Both of those subsidies still exist. The Obama administration claims the average subsidy for huge oil companies is $4 billion per year. The bill in the Senate would have saved $24 billion in 10 years. The White House claims when gas goes up one cent per gallon, oil companies make $200 million more per month....
Stop and think about that.
The land where the petroleum industry pumps this oil is OUR LAND. They are leased the privilege of MINERAL RIGHTS on our land. In turn for their lease payment they are allowed to profit from it. The petroleum industry is removing our minerals to sell, hopefully to us and not export it, so they can make a profit. No one said they had the right to exploit any dependency of the USA consumer on that mineral.
The subsidies for oil production started nearly a CENTURY ago. There was a reason for the subsidies and it was to engage the use of petroleum as a source of energy.
Today, the USA has to remove it's majority of oil dependency in its consumer markets to alternatives. We are suffering a huge drought currently involving a full two thirds of the nation of which 39% is severe to profound drought. The USA doesn't have a choice, the CO2 emissions from fossil fuels is destroying our crop land AND driving up the price of food, too. Probably medicines and plastics used in things like injection syringes, too.
The alternative energy sources, even after decades of research, were never invested in by the federal government in the way the petroleum industry was a century ago. Alternative sources of energy is not about hugging trees, it is about survival on Earth. Now, either the USA wants its sovereignty or it doesn't. If the people cannot find healthy food and clean water; corruption will take over this country and people will live outside the system and start their own personal sovereignty and communities will be the ONLY paradigm that exists worth having. We are on our way.
The Recovery Act provided INVESTMENT in alternative energy sources because there was no other way to secure the future of this country. Now, if I were the 1%, sure it wouldn't matter if there was investment in anything but what was most profitable. The 1% can afford anything. They can afford to abandon the planet if they wanted to, so to believe they care about the rest of humanity, yet alone the citizens of the USA, all one has to do is examine their priorities.
The wars of the USA are fought by the impoverished men and women primarily.
List the issues / problems facing the Middle Class and Poor in the USA and the priorities of the 1% become very obvious.
I spoke with a friendly stranger yesterday. An acquaintance. She stated she could not believe how warm it was in North Carolina in October. I told her North Carolina was the new Florida because of the Climate Crisis.
She smiled and laughed and said she was delighted. I told her while it might be nice to think about NC as a tourist haven that doesn't mean it is a good thing or a safe trend.
She stated, "I hope it does stabilize because I am paying a fortune for natural gas and if we have a mild winter I'll have a better Christmas for my family."
I stated, "I thought natural gas was suppose to be the savior of our energy future?"
She stated, "Savior? At these prices! I dearly hope not!"
So, to return to the presidential elections, for Willard Mitt "The Junk Yard Dog" Romney (which might explain why Seamus rode on the roof instead of with the family that was supposed to have loved the dog) to make analogies of petroleum industry subsidies versus alternative energy sources is not only illogical, it is criminal and a lie.
