Science Chic wrote: [As for being the only non-conservative to post on this thread, I don't think that's a problem at all. There are many threads in which archer or LJ jump right in so I don't feel that my input is necessary - they are quite capable of holding their own - so I often decline to post. Likewise, I'm guessing that they feel the same when they see me jump in a thread like this (especially since energy policy is a favorite study of mine!), and don't feel the need to add their viewpoint as well (and I appreciate the unspoken vote of confidence in my competence to hold my own, albeit young and not-yet-all-experienced-and-wise, viewpoints, or maybe they don't care for the topic either, who knows?) .
Once again, right you are. I am usually in awe of how well you present your opinions and your research. Anything I might post after that would be a extraneous.
Not to mention that this is a subject I am woefully uninformed upon, whatever I posted I would never be able to back up. I hate it when I get cought doing that.
neptunechimney wrote: My complements. You are the only non conservative to post to this thread. Double points for not responding with pre packaged talking points.
Science Chic wrote:
PrintSmith wrote: Exxon makes a profit of $0.02 per gallon of fuel, the federated government ymakes a profit of $0.184 per gallon of fuel. Whose profit is obscene again?
Do you have a source for this PS?
You know, if I were them, I'd start shifting my energy production to renewable sources - it'll be a lot more profitable! :thumbsup:
I think you might be surprised to learn that some of the majors are investing considerable research dollars into alternative energy. Shell is one of those. A few years ago I received an internal memo with regard to that line of research.
Conversely, even if you only make a few cents on a gallon of fuel, the volume is what is important to getting a good return. Investing in renewable energy offers a company little return at this juncture. It's still a business whose aim is to make money.
And what happens when they start making even more profit off of the alternative energy than they are on the petroleum energy? Will we have another Senate committee calling for the end of the tax subsidies on alternative energy forms and continuing to vilify them as they are currently doing?
I have noticed, but perhaps it has escaped others, that the Senate isn't calling for an end to all energy tax subsidies to either these 5 evil big oil companies or all of the companies that receive them. They are perfectly willing to allow these 5 evil companies to continue to receive their federal tax credits and deductions on alternative energy forms. Heck, what better way to give incentive to the companies to further increase the cost of petroleum energy by limiting their participation in the effort to keep the reserves of it high. If you think a barrel of oil is expensive now, wait until the commodity has a much lower reserve to replace what is being sold, which is precisely the area where the money is being spent that the proposed end of tax credits affect.
Coincidence? I think we all know better than that by now, don't we?
