ET the only thing you might be correct about in the above is that the tax on gasoline (which varies by state from $0.31 to $0.71/gal - $0.184 of the being Federal) may affect the price of gasoline more than the profits of an Gas/Oil company.
But that is not what we were talking about.
Your claim was - taking away subsidies currently given to the fossil fuel industries would greatly increase the cost of gas at the pump and therefore is justifiable in your mind. The fact that profits are 30x as much as subsidies (in the case of Exxon-Mobil) does not move your focus away from protecting those subsidies onto limiting excess profits (10% profit margins are excessive in such a big market). Thus is your implicit trust in the corporate world and free market - based pricing (although subsidies are accepted if it fits your fancy -i.e. none of this green stuff)
However, you claim subsidies to alternative energy R&D / climate research (‘billions and trillions’ in your original post) are taking taxpayer money and giving it to those involved in “saving the planet”. Totally wasteful (and exaggerated) in your mind.
ET: about the billions and trillions of dollars being redistributed from taxpayers to scientists and whomever else wants to share in the wealth in the name of saving the planet.
Furthermore you claimed that cutting CO2 by 70% would increase the price of gas by 77% ~$6.10/gal.
ET: But let's keep these real-world figures out front since they are the most direct way we will pay for all this...uhhh...doo-doo.
A U.S. Energy Information Administration economic forecasting model indicates that a proposed 70% cut in CO2 emissions will cause gasoline prices to rise 77% over baseline projections, kill more than 3 million jobs, and reduce average household income by more than $4,000 each year.
With no other factors considered, that means gas would go from $3.50 today to $6.10 or so. $4000 in reduced income. Doesn't mention the increase in electricity prices certain to come with more regulatory bovine fertilizer
You quoted the US Energy Information Administration but could not produce that quote - probably came from some RW group in denial of Global Warming/Climate Change meant to rally their troops (with false or rigged claims). (Btw, that sounded fishy from the EIA I had read, so I searched hard but could not find it in any of the US EIA extensive website.) Adding potty talk
does not make your case.Truth is the total energy cost in the future will likely be lower if we turn to renewable sources. Read here.
Once the infrastructure for energy supply has been established, the costs for the renewable system are markedly lower compared to a continued fossil fuel system.
This does not even take into account the additional cost savings from lessening the impacts of climate change!
Not proven, I know, but likely.
I hope you realize that the fossil fuel costs are increasing dramatically as we drill and frack our way into diminishing, harder-to-extract resources.
The price of gasoline that we pay has followed this trend.
dipping downward only when demand was down after the 2008 crash. (btw, that $2.30/gal price is probably closer to what we would be paying if Big Oil took reasonable profits)
Meanwhile Renewables are getting cheaper
Right now, energy from clean sources is more expensive than fossil fuel energy. However, the cost of most forms of renewable energy has been dropping, some of them quite dramatically. Clean Edge reports that the cost of solar PV has fallen by 50% in the last five years. At the same time, the cost of fossil fuels has been rising as global demand increases. Both trends are likely to continue. Wind power is already at grid parity in some parts of the world and as global gas prices rise, it will become increasingly competitive. Renewable energy will eclipse fossil fuel energy in due course, and those countries that are investing now will be better placed to manage the transition.
That’s the key thing that needs to be communicated here: renewable energy is expensive now, but it means lower bills in future. If it leaves us dependent on ever more expensive gas, it is ultimately more expensive not to invest.
Right now, the US is subsidizing climate research/alternative energy at a $22B/year (much improved from Bush days) while continuing and even increasing subsidies to already supremely profitable oil/gas/pipeline industries at $24B/year (not warranted, imo) and the utilities/gas/electricity industries at $31B/year (some warranted,imo). There is likely overlap (some of the $22B is probably mixed into the other subsidies)
Instead of sarcastically putting down those who are trying to “save the planet”, our kids living in 2050 could enjoy lower-priced and cleaner energy, if we put the infrastructure in place to distribute wind, solar, biomass, geothermal energy as the fossil fuel has enjoyed for decades and immensely profited from. Having the US install the Keystone pipeline to move expensive and dirty tar sands oil is really dumb.
I generally do not like notional graphs but here is the true picture:
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.