• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump urged to ditch AGW denial by 630 major firms who warn it 'prosperity at risk'

Re: Trump urged to ditch AGW denial by 630 major firms who warn it 'prosperity at ris

1) The entire energy industry is subsidized. Without government subsidies you wouldn't have power in your home from any source.
2) Many new industries take off due to government subsidies. The government pioneered many parts of the internet. Without that government kick, the technology would never have taken off.
3) Solar is now self sufficient. It does not need government subsidies to survive, but it does need subsidies to be able to compete with fossil fuels because fossil fuels have their own subsidies.

But ok, lets remove subsidies from all energy sources and see what happens. I think you'll find that with the way solar energy is improving (i.e. rapidly) it will quickly take over fossil fuels.

If it was that efficient the oil companies would be all over the segment of the energy industry.

It's already been established that wind and solar can't compete with fossil fuels.
 
Re: Trump urged to ditch AGW denial by 630 major firms who warn it 'prosperity at ris

If it was that efficient the oil companies would be all over the segment of the energy industry.

It's already been established that wind and solar can't compete with fossil fuels.

And proper chemical disposal can't compete with dumping everything in the nearest river.
 
Re: Trump urged to ditch AGW denial by 630 major firms who warn it 'prosperity at ris

If it was that efficient the oil companies would be all over the segment of the energy industry.

It's already been established that wind and solar can't compete with fossil fuels.

That used to be the case. Not anymore. Going forward, the only reason that fossil fuels will compete with renewables is their continued subsidies (which dwarf renewable subsidies).
 
Re: Trump urged to ditch AGW denial by 630 major firms who warn it 'prosperity at ris

That used to be the case. Not anymore. Going forward, the only reason that fossil fuels will compete with renewables is their continued subsidies (which dwarf renewable subsidies).

You're very wrong about that.
 
Re: Trump urged to ditch AGW denial by 630 major firms who warn it 'prosperity at ris

You're very wrong about that.

Nope.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...-of-solar-is-declining-to-unprecedented-lows/
Solar Is Going to Get Ridiculously Cheap | Fortune.com
Forbes Welcome

Solar prices are dropping like a rock. Coal/natural gas prices aren't. Solar is a nascent technology, and right now the largest cost of solar projects (64%) are soft costs: financing costs, legal costs, permitting, interconnection etc. These things can be reduced and will as the solar industry matures (which it is.. rapidly). Hardware costs have already fallen massively.

soft%20costs%20breakdown.png


Financing of commercial solar projects must become much easier. Right now, only very large banks, with tax appetites (due to the way solar is subsidized by tax credits) can finance solar projects, and they do so on much more expensive terms than they’ll offer a new office building or apartment complex. As conventional banks become more familiar with solar projects, larger institutions will finance solar projects on more favorable terms than we realize today. Bankers will see less technology risk and less construction risk even if Trump does pose a policy risk.

Right now we shoot ourselves in the foot with solar. If we deregulated it to the level of fossil fuels, and unsubsidized fossil fuels to the level of solar, it would be far and away the better energy source. Hence the idea behind this thread, the economic argument for solar energy. Surely as a conservative you understand that?
 
Re: Trump urged to ditch AGW denial by 630 major firms who warn it 'prosperity at ris

Such a push to make green energy cheaper has only be done so far on a small scale or in ideal environments. So it would require subsidies in order to accelerate it. But it's an investment. Many companies take a hit on R&D to ensure more profits in the future. It saves money in the long term, and it also helps combat cc, a win win. This letter from 630 companies is a great first step towards achieving this. It is a sign that successful companies and top investors do believe that renewables have a profitable future, even if many politicians don't believe it right now. I'm hoping this provides something that Trump just can't deny/ignore.

Where have you been, everything green has been subsidized by federal and state governments. Not one solar panel would be in place if not for subsidies. Green cars are subsidized. Tax payers lost close to 500 million in Solyndra. Thus far there has been billions spent by the feds and the state to promote green and they are a long long way to getting green to compete on price with our natural resources.

T Bone Pickin lost is ass on windmills

Wind investments blow Pickens off the Forbes 400 list | The Daily Caller
 
Re: Trump urged to ditch AGW denial by 630 major firms who warn it 'prosperity at ris

Where have you been, everything green has been subsidized by federal and state governments. Not one solar panel would be in place if not for subsidies. Green cars are subsidized. Tax payers lost close to 500 million in Solyndra. Thus far there has been billions spent by the feds and the state to promote green and they are a long long way to getting green to compete on price with our natural resources.

T Bone Pickin lost is ass on windmills

Wind investments blow Pickens off the Forbes 400 list | The Daily Caller

Every energy source has been massively subsidized. If it wasn't for government subsidies, we wouldn't have electricity in our home, fossil fuel or otherwise.

And see my above post, solar as a technology is becoming more competitive than fossil fuels. It also creates more jobs. The reason it isn't cheaper right now is because fossil fuels get more subsidies, and because the soft (read: regulatory) costs of solar being over 50% of the total overhead. Policy skews towards fossil fuels (due to fossil fuel lobbyists over the past x years - ff subsidies are actually written into the tax code) and solar is still approaching competitiveness. We can see in countries where fossil fuels don't have massive subsidies, solar is overtaking them, because it's cheaper.

Costs of solar are falling by double digit percents every year. What you say may have been true in 2007, but that was 10 years ago.
 
Re: Trump urged to ditch AGW denial by 630 major firms who warn it 'prosperity at ris

Nope.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...-of-solar-is-declining-to-unprecedented-lows/
Solar Is Going to Get Ridiculously Cheap | Fortune.com
Forbes Welcome

Solar prices are dropping like a rock. Coal/natural gas prices aren't. Solar is a nascent technology, and right now the largest cost of solar projects (64%) are soft costs: financing costs, legal costs, permitting, interconnection etc. These things can be reduced and will as the solar industry matures (which it is.. rapidly). Hardware costs have already fallen massively.

soft%20costs%20breakdown.png


Financing of commercial solar projects must become much easier. Right now, only very large banks, with tax appetites (due to the way solar is subsidized by tax credits) can finance solar projects, and they do so on much more expensive terms than they’ll offer a new office building or apartment complex. As conventional banks become more familiar with solar projects, larger institutions will finance solar projects on more favorable terms than we realize today. Bankers will see less technology risk and less construction risk even if Trump does pose a policy risk.

Right now we shoot ourselves in the foot with solar. If we deregulated it to the level of fossil fuels, and unsubsidized fossil fuels to the level of solar, it would be far and away the better energy source. Hence the idea behind this thread, the economic argument for solar energy. Surely as a conservative you understand that?

The oil and gas industry doesn't receive cash subsidies. Solar and wind do, to the tune of $20 billion a year.
 
Re: Trump urged to ditch AGW denial by 630 major firms who warn it 'prosperity at ris

Every energy source has been massively subsidized. If it wasn't for government subsidies, we wouldn't have electricity in our home, fossil fuel or otherwise.

And see my above post, solar as a technology is becoming more competitive than fossil fuels. It also creates more jobs. The reason it isn't cheaper right now is because fossil fuels get more subsidies, and because the soft (read: regulatory) costs of solar being over 50% of the total overhead. Policy skews towards fossil fuels (due to fossil fuel lobbyists over the past x years - ff subsidies are actually written into the tax code) and solar is still approaching competitiveness. We can see in countries where fossil fuels don't have massive subsidies, solar is overtaking them, because it's cheaper.

Costs of solar are falling by double digit percents every year. What you say may have been true in 2007, but that was 10 years ago.

This is what I was responding too.

"Such a push to make green energy cheaper has only be done so far on a small scale or in ideal environments. So it would require subsidies in order to accelerate it."


Your statement is false. I pointed out solar is hugely subsidized, every solar panel is subsidized, if these huge subsidies were not offered to the public there would be no solar. Period
 
Last edited:
Re: Trump urged to ditch AGW denial by 630 major firms who warn it 'prosperity at ris

The oil and gas industry doesn't receive cash subsidies. Solar and wind do, to the tune of $20 billion a year.

Lol globally fossil fuels get $600 billion/year in subsidies' (I assume you're counting tax credits as cash subsidies).

https://www.iisd.org/gsi/fossil-fuel-subsidies
WEO - Fossil Fuel Subsidy Database

Fossil fuels also get subsidies written into the tax code (due to the age of the business) rather than renewable subsidies that are renegotiated every year. Fossil fuels also get an environmental subsidy.

This is what I was responding too.

"Such a push to make green energy cheaper has only be done so far on a small scale or in ideal environments. So it would require subsidies in order to accelerate it."

Your statement is false. I pointed out solar is hugely subsidized, every solar panel is subsidized, if these huge subsidies were not offered to the public there would be no solar. Period

1. My statement is true. Solar energy is cheaper than fossil fuels in certain places. It is where environments are not ideal that more investment is needed.
2. Fossil fuels get magnitudes more subsidies than solar in raw dollars.
2. All energy is hugely subsidized. Not just solar. If these subsidies were not offered to the public there would be no electricity at your house. Period.
 
Last edited:
Re: Trump urged to ditch AGW denial by 630 major firms who warn it 'prosperity at ris

Donald Trump urged to ditch his climate change denial by 630 major firms who warn it 'puts American prosperity at risk' | The Independent




I think it's becoming increasingly clear that the only way that policies that combat climate change will be implemented if they have a strong economic foundation. As much as people like to bash it, 2016 was a good year for renewable energy. In many countries around the world it contributed to the majority of energy on their grid, and in some countries it was cheaper per kWh than fossil fuels.

If we can focus on the economics of renewables, we have a real chance to push them through in todays pro-corporate political environment. Politically/scientifically, the sides have been set. No matter what the science says, people are always going to throw their hands in the air and say it's no big deal. People have shown they won't change their minds, but if the economic case can be made, then people have to stop and listen because the profit margin will follow. If politicians are still plugging fossil fuels after the economics lean in favor of renewables, then ties to fossil fuel lobbyists would have to be investigated.

Such a push to make green energy cheaper has only be done so far on a small scale or in ideal environments. So it would require subsidies in order to accelerate it. But it's an investment. Many companies take a hit on R&D to ensure more profits in the future. It saves money in the long term, and it also helps combat cc, a win win. This letter from 630 companies is a great first step towards achieving this. It is a sign that successful companies and top investors do believe that renewables have a profitable future, even if many politicians don't believe it right now. I'm hoping this provides something that Trump just can't deny/ignore.

I can imagine dirty hippies circulating a petition from a basement somewhere urging the companies to sign

And if they don't more dirty hippies will flood their email inbox with insulting messages till they do sign

Green energy is not cheaper and environmentalists have to put pressure on government and private industry to make illogical decisions
 
Re: Trump urged to ditch AGW denial by 630 major firms who warn it 'prosperity at ris

Lol globally fossil fuels get $600 billion/year in subsidies' (I assume you're counting tax credits as cash subsidies).

https://www.iisd.org/gsi/fossil-fuel-subsidies
WEO - Fossil Fuel Subsidy Database

Fossil fuels also get subsidies written into the tax code (due to the age of the business) rather than renewable subsidies that are renegotiated every year. Fossil fuels also get an environmental subsidy.



1. My statement is true. Solar energy is cheaper than fossil fuels in certain places. It is where environments are not ideal that more investment is needed.
2. Fossil fuels get magnitudes more subsidies than solar in raw dollars.
2. All energy is hugely subsidized. Not just solar. If these subsidies were not offered to the public there would be no electricity at your house. Period.

I'm talking about The United States. Don't hurt your back moving that goalpost.
 
Re: Trump urged to ditch AGW denial by 630 major firms who warn it 'prosperity at ris

No need for any moving.. US oil and gas get $20.5 million a year. It increased under Obama, and is higher than anywhere else.

" ...“Since the initial G20 commitment in Pittsburgh six years ago, President Obama has been a leader on this issue internationally. And yet, US subsidies have increased dramatically in his Administration, in line with the increase in US oil and gas production,” Stephen Kretzmann, executive director of Oil Change International, said, in a statement.

According to the report -- compiled by Oil Change International and U.K.-based think tank Overseas Development Institute -- national subsidies to oil, gas and coal producers amount to $20.5 billion annually in the U.S., with almost all of those being received in the form of tax or royalty breaks. Federal subsidies amount to $17.2 billion annually, while subsidies in a number of oil-, gas- and coal-producing states average $3.3 billion annually.

“The U.S. is set apart from other G20 countries by the sheer variety of tax exemptions for fossil fuel producers,” the report said. ..."

fossil-fuel-investment.PNG


US Fossil Fuel Subsidies Increase 'Dramatically' Despite Climate Change Pledge
 
Last edited:
Re: Trump urged to ditch AGW denial by 630 major firms who warn it 'prosperity at ris

Why is CO2 per capita such a bad metric?

Because per capita benefits gigantic nations that pollute more in total than the US, while having fewer regulations and less costly energy and manufacturing costs involved---IE China and India.
 
Re: Trump urged to ditch AGW denial by 630 major firms who warn it 'prosperity at ris

I'm talking about The United States. Don't hurt your back moving that goalpost.

Then your $20 billion figure is wrong.

http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2015/11/Empty-promises_main-report.2015.pdf

So don't hurt your back trying to move yours. Not to mention, over the lifetime of a solar project, the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) provides a 126% average return on investment to the federal government. And that's even with the crippling regulations renewables have (see: Coal-loving Wyoming legislators are pushing a bill to outlaw wind and solar. | Grist).

Almost every single renewable company would be happy to compete on a level playing field with fossil fuels. Time for the ff companies to put their money where their mouth is. Remove both renewable and ff subsidies and see which one comes out on top.

If you're so free market you'd be for that.
 
Re: Trump urged to ditch AGW denial by 630 major firms who warn it 'prosperity at ris

Then your $20 billion figure is wrong.

http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2015/11/Empty-promises_main-report.2015.pdf

So don't hurt your back trying to move yours. Not to mention, over the lifetime of a solar project, the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) provides a 126% average return on investment to the federal government. And that's even with the crippling regulations renewables have (see: Coal-loving Wyoming legislators are pushing a bill to outlaw wind and solar. | Grist).

Almost every single renewable company would be happy to compete on a level playing field with fossil fuels. Time for the ff companies to put their money where their mouth is. Remove both renewable and ff subsidies and see which one comes out on top.

If you're so free market you'd be for that.

The only subsidy that oil producers get is the Oil Depletion Allowance

If libs are willing to end all tax subsidies to alternative energy products and consumers I would end the ODA too
 
Re: Trump urged to ditch AGW denial by 630 major firms who warn it 'prosperity at ris

Then your $20 billion figure is wrong.

http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2015/11/Empty-promises_main-report.2015.pdf

So don't hurt your back trying to move yours. Not to mention, over the lifetime of a solar project, the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) provides a 126% average return on investment to the federal government. And that's even with the crippling regulations renewables have (see: Coal-loving Wyoming legislators are pushing a bill to outlaw wind and solar. | Grist).

Almost every single renewable company would be happy to compete on a level playing field with fossil fuels. Time for the ff companies to put their money where their mouth is. Remove both renewable and ff subsidies and see which one comes out on top.

If you're so free market you'd be for that.

Renewables can't compete with fossil fuels. If they could, they wouldn't need to be propped up by the government.
 
Re: Trump urged to ditch AGW denial by 630 major firms who warn it 'prosperity at ris

Renewables can't compete with fossil fuels. If they could, they wouldn't need to be propped up by the government.

Once more reality trumps ideology.

“Renewable energies were the number one source of power production for the first time ever,” the think-tank said. “They have now permanently displaced lignite as the top source of power in the [German] electricity mix.”

" ...Under an ambitious energy transition policy, known as the Energiewende, Europe’s biggest economy aims to generate up to 60 per cent of electricity from renewables by 2035. This shift is being accompanied by an exit from nuclear power. All of Germany’s nuclear plants will be switched off by 2022, under plans announced by Chancellor Angela Merkel in the wake of the Fukushima disaster in Japan...."


https://www.ft.com/content/cc90455a-9654-11e4-a40b-00144feabdc0
 
Re: Trump urged to ditch AGW denial by 630 major firms who warn it 'prosperity at ris

Renewables can't compete with fossil fuels. If they could, they wouldn't need to be propped up by the government.

Except that's demonstrably false as shown by the many places where renewables do compete with fossil fuels.

Fact is. In some places, renewables can compete. In other places, renewables can't. And a lot of places where renewables can't is due to the incentives that fossil fuels still benefit from. Furthermore, as I've said, and as you haven't addressed yet, costs for renewables are plummeting and will continue to do so (bar more anti-renewable policy) whilst costs for fossil fuels are not dropping, and will not drop. More and more places are being found in the renewable supply chain to save money (i.e. cutting down on the soft costs) whereas fossil fuels are as about economically efficient as they are ever going to be. The sooner we embrace renewables, the sooner they will be economically preferable to fossil fuels in more and more places. Obviously, this is bad for the fossil fuel lobbies.

But don't take my word for it. Take the word of the 630 companies in the OP who echo my sentiment.

If solar/renewables were called something else, republicans would be clamouring for it.
 
Re: Trump urged to ditch AGW denial by 630 major firms who warn it 'prosperity at ris

Except that's demonstrably false as shown by the many places where renewables do compete with fossil fuels.

Fact is. In some places, renewables can compete. In other places, renewables can't. And a lot of places where renewables can't is due to the incentives that fossil fuels still benefit from. Furthermore, as I've said, and as you haven't addressed yet, costs for renewables are plummeting and will continue to do so (bar more anti-renewable policy) whilst costs for fossil fuels are not dropping, and will not drop. More and more places are being found in the renewable supply chain to save money (i.e. cutting down on the soft costs) whereas fossil fuels are as about economically efficient as they are ever going to be. The sooner we embrace renewables, the sooner they will be economically preferable to fossil fuels in more and more places. Obviously, this is bad for the fossil fuel lobbies.

But don't take my word for it. Take the word of the 630 companies in the OP who echo my sentiment.

If solar/renewables were called something else, republicans would be clamouring for it.

without federal subsidies renewable cannot compete with fossil fuel
 
Re: Trump urged to ditch AGW denial by 630 major firms who warn it 'prosperity at ris

Except that's demonstrably false as shown by the many places where renewables do compete with fossil fuels.

Fact is. In some places, renewables can compete. In other places, renewables can't. And a lot of places where renewables can't is due to the incentives that fossil fuels still benefit from. Furthermore, as I've said, and as you haven't addressed yet, costs for renewables are plummeting and will continue to do so (bar more anti-renewable policy) whilst costs for fossil fuels are not dropping, and will not drop. More and more places are being found in the renewable supply chain to save money (i.e. cutting down on the soft costs) whereas fossil fuels are as about economically efficient as they are ever going to be. The sooner we embrace renewables, the sooner they will be economically preferable to fossil fuels in more and more places. Obviously, this is bad for the fossil fuel lobbies.

But don't take my word for it. Take the word of the 630 companies in the OP who echo my sentiment.

If solar/renewables were called something else, republicans would be clamouring for it.

You haven't demonstrated anything.
 
Re: Trump urged to ditch AGW denial by 630 major firms who warn it 'prosperity at ris

Once more reality trumps ideology.

“Renewable energies were the number one source of power production for the first time ever,” the think-tank said. “They have now permanently displaced lignite as the top source of power in the [German] electricity mix.”

" ...Under an ambitious energy transition policy, known as the Energiewende, Europe’s biggest economy aims to generate up to 60 per cent of electricity from renewables by 2035. This shift is being accompanied by an exit from nuclear power. All of Germany’s nuclear plants will be switched off by 2022, under plans announced by Chancellor Angela Merkel in the wake of the Fukushima disaster in Japan...."


https://www.ft.com/content/cc90455a-9654-11e4-a40b-00144feabdc0

Yep! Reality!

https://www.google.com/amp/www.brei.../europes-energy-crisis-poses-warning-u-s/amp/
 
Re: Trump urged to ditch AGW denial by 630 major firms who warn it 'prosperity at ris

Southernmost Germany is at a similar latitude to Seattle, Missoula, or Fargo. Solar works there, and up into Scandinavia.
 
Re: Trump urged to ditch AGW denial by 630 major firms who warn it 'prosperity at ris

without federal subsidies renewable cannot compete with fossil fuel

US fossil fuel subsidies match them.
 
Back
Top Bottom