US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1047

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — An Arkansas judge on Friday struck down the state's ban on gay marriage, opening the door for gay couples to wed.

Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza said the 2004 amendment's definition of marriage as allowable only between a man and a woman is unconstitutional and violates the rights of same-sex couples.

The ruling came nearly a week after state Attorney General Dustin McDaniel announced he personally supports gay marriage rights but that he will continue to defend the constitutional ban in court.

McDaniel's office is expected to quickly appeal Piazza's ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court.

The 2004 constitutional amendment was passed with the overwhelming support of Arkansas voters.

The U.S. Supreme Court last year ruled that a law forbidding the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages was unconstitutional. Since then, lower-court judges have repeatedly cited the Supreme Court decision when striking down some of the same-sex marriage bans that were enacted after Massachusetts started recognizing gay marriages in 2004.

On May 10 2014 00:03 aksfjh wrote:
Personally, I would love a shift away from "clean fossil fuel" initiatives and towards nuclear options. That doesn't mean outright building traditional nuclear plants, but rather changing investment strategies and exploring those avenues more. We spend a lot of money trying to create cleaner energy out of coal and natural gas, when the result is STILL a plant that doesn't meet the lighter standards of pollution.

Renewables seem well funded and on the right track for now...

On May 10 2014 13:42 Wegandi wrote:


You can't run modern society on only renewables, and renewables have all sorts of problems that go along with them (if environmentalists bothered to care...). Hydro creates a lot of problems, wind farms can decimate bird flocks, solar is inefficient and regional and is more suited to local usage than industrial, and about a million other things you can list.

On May 10 2014 14:08 hypercube wrote:


Hydro isn't considered because it can't be scaled. All the best sites are already taken. Bird deaths are a silly argument though: birds will learn to avoid them in a few generations, just as they adapted to other man-made hazards. In any case worrying about a few hundred bird deaths in a world of mass extinctions and massive loss of habitats shows a lack of understanding of the scale of the problem.

On May 10 2014 23:52 Roswell wrote:
Renewable energy is cute, just not hot.

I like the people who put solar panels on their roofs in my neighborhood that face the street to show off instead of on the side which would get the most sun.

Giving tax incentives and help funding clean energy over non renewable companies is a sham. If these companies cant compete with the natural gas and coal and oil companies then let em die out till they can, if yall need to feel good then fund the science. That bein said renewable energy isnt that far behind now.

The oil, coal, gas and nuclear industries have received approximately $630 billion in United States government subsidies, while wind, solar, biofuels and other renewable sectors have received a total of roughly $50 billion in government investments in cumulative dollar amounts, over the lifetimes of their respective subsidies.

According to the report, as a percentage of inflation-adjusted federal spending, nuclear subsidies accounted for more than one percent of the federal budget over the first 15 years of each subsidies’ life; oil and gas subsidies made up half a percent of the total budget, but renewables have amounted to only about a tenth of a percent.

On May 11 2014 03:32 GreenHorizons wrote:


You really should educate yourself on the subject before offering such an uninformed opinion.



Source

Well unless you would have also called the subsidizing of coal/oil over steam a sham too?

On May 11 2014 03:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

I don't have time to look over that report right now, but those are usually sham reports and differ widely from the EIA's numbers, largely due to differences in subsidy defintions. EIA numbers.

The quote you pulled is suspect. Even using their definitions you shouldn't compare subsidies over 100 years to a large industry vs subsidies over a couple decades to a small industry.

Edit: your source is an investment company talking their book. Be careful when using their data.

A 2012 study authored by researchers at the Breakthrough Institute, Brookings Institution, and World Resources Institute[24] estimated that between 2009 and 2014 the federal government will spend $150 billion on clean energy through a combination of direct spending and tax expenditures. Renewable electricity (mainly wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, and tidal energy) will account for the largest share of this expenditure, 32.1%, while spending on liquid biofuels will account for the next largest share, 16.1%. Spending on multiple and other forms of clean energy, including energy efficiency, electric vehicles and advanced batteries, high-speed rail, grid and transportation electrification, nuclear, and advanced fossil fuel technologies, will account for the remaining share, 51.8%. Moreover, the report finds that absent federal action, spending on clean energy will decline by 75%, from $44.3 billion in 2009 to $11.0 billion in 2014.

On May 11 2014 04:25 GreenHorizons wrote:


Yeah I'm not too tied to the specific numbers but other data confirms that renewables outside of biomass (which I have my qualms about) haven't enjoyed nearly the level of subsidy that O&G or Nuclear has.



Just a wiki

I am aware that the numbers can be calculated differently depending on what you are trying to show. It seems like pretty much any way you slice it Renewables have just recently surpassed O&G subsidies and that as a share of public funding and has received significantly less overall.

One of the hardest ones to balance are tax credits that are available to other industries but are just utilized to the tune of billions for O&G corporations.

Something else that can be influencial on the numbers is who you count as getting what. For instance Exxon's subsidy collection is increased by things like Biofuel subsidies.

It's also worth noting Renewable subsidies would be significantly smaller or completely non-existent if conservatives had their way.

Reagan spending federal money to REMOVE functional solar panels compared to Obama Installing Solar panels back on the White House 30 years later sums up the issue pretty well.

We could be leaps and bounds ahead of where we are now if it weren't for people coming out of that Reagan-like camp.

But if you have some subsidy numbers that paint a different picture feel free to show them.

On May 11 2014 04:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

The wiki numbers look wrong. Foreign tax credits aren't oil and gas subsidies as they're available to solar (or any other company) as well. Frankly, they really aren't subsidies at all.

Bear in mind when looking at the numbers that O&G is a huge industry and solar is really small. Because of that if you declare accelerated depreciation a subsidy O&G will post a huge dollar amount but the per unit of energy subsidy will be tiny.

There's no reason why renewables would have received a lot of subsidies in the past. The technology was really shitty just a couple decades ago. Similarly, comparing Reagan removing solar to Obama adding solar makes no sense. Why would you want a solar panel in the 80's? They were about as functional as cell phones in the 80's.

On May 11 2014 05:16 GreenHorizons wrote:


To be fair my original comment you are responding to wasn't directed at you. So the context might not be as clear.

The Reagan example is to illustrate how conservatives didn't just want Solar and renewables to 'compete', they were going out of their way 30 years ago to slow, besmirch, and undermine renewable tech, and that we are retreading ground we had already taken decades ago. (Having to install instead of replace new solar panels).

All of which fits into a larger trend in conservative positions.

On May 11 2014 05:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Your Reagan example doesn't illustrate that conservatives don't want solar to compete. 30 years ago solar couldn't compete. Even today, solar isn't quite at the point where it can compete.

To spell it out - there's a difference between holding something that can compete back and not wanting to support something that can't compete.

On May 11 2014 06:32 GreenHorizons wrote:


To be honest Jonny I wouldn't expect it to ring true to you. I already know where this road leads so I'm not going to entertain your argument long. I've made my point and whether you accept it or not isn't really relevant to me.

'Even today, solar isn't quite at the point where it can compete' Ugh.. This is also why I don't want to go down this rabbit hole with you...

But for those who don't seem to understand the actual known history of energy discovery and use, here is a kid friendly illustration. (Unless of course those kids are New Earthers as the start of the timeline could be problematic).

+ Show Spoiler +

Also if you are still having a hard time comprehending how Reagan and his camps' are one of several reasons 'Even today, solar isn't quite at the point where it can compete' perhaps you should look into Reagan and the IIASA.

There are so many examples of conservatives (and Dem's from O&G States) inhibiting renewables from enjoying similar treatment as O&G and Nuclear, it's ridiculous to me, you could with any sincerity, suggest otherwise.

Bottom line: I'm not saying this applies to you Jonny but most people on either side don't have a clue what they are talking about when it comes to energy (beyond talking points). My original point, is one should merely get a much better grasp before offering an opinion that is clearly not well thought out or considerate of the actual state of the relevant discourse (outside conservative bubbles).

If you have some data that shows the narrative of subsidies being significantly different than my description I'm still open to seeing them, not variations in calculations of one number or another, but something that shows somehow renewables are getting some sort of treatment that is better than previous energy sources?

On May 11 2014 07:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

I think you're misguided on the subsidy issue. For the most part, favorable treatments available to O&G companies are also available to renewables (ex. accelerated depreciation). On top of that renewables often get very big subsidies. For solar the big Federal subsidy (though not the only one) is the tax credit covering 30% of the capital cost. I've never heard of a subsidy to O&G or nuclear that came anywhere close to that.

A recent report by Scully Capital Services, an investment banking and financial services firm, commissioned by the Department of Energy (DOE), highlighted three federal subsidies and regulations — termed “show stoppers” — without which the industry would grind to a halt. These “show stoppers” include the Price Anderson Act, which limits the liability of the nuclear industry in case of a serious nuclear accident — leaving taxpayers on the hook for potentially hundreds of billions in compensation costs; federal disposal of nuclear waste in a permanent repository, which will save the industry billions at taxpayer expense; and licensing regulations, wherein the report recommends that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission further grease the skids of its quasi-judicial licensing process to preclude successful interventions from opponents. But even these long-standing subsidies are not enough to convince investors, who for decades have treated nuclear power as the pariah of the energy industry.

On May 11 2014 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:


Your response is a non-sequitur to my post. (I know you disagree or you presumably wouldn't have posted it)



I mean there are more but "$100's of billions" +billions more for waste disposal was the most obvious refutation of your misinformed and clearly deceptive point.

Don't bother going on until you have something that shows in context some story of renewables getting significantly better treatment than O&G or Nuclear OVERALL not just a snapshot of the current situation. I won't even go into how the health and environmental consequences of O&G are so much worse and not calculated into these types calculations.

On May 11 2014 08:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Nuclear is a bit different and, appropriately, my comments were directed to O&G.

You seem to be having a problem with the numbers. A large industry receiving a small subsidy (like accelerated depreciation) over a long period of time will have numbers that aggregate into a large figure. However, that doesn't mean that the industry is highly subsidized. In any given year the small subsidy wouldn't have meant much and removing the subsidy wouldn't have affected prices to a large degree.

This situation with solar is different. Remove the subsidies and the costs are much higher. For example:



What makes solar heavily subsidized is the affect of subsidies on prices, not total aggregate spending over the past century.

The first 15 years, the report says, are critical to developing new technologies. It finds that oil and gas subsidies, including tax breaks and government spending, were about five times as much as aid to renewables during their first 15 years of development; nuclear received 10 times as much support.

...the fledgling oil industry in the United States first received government assistance in 1916. That was when intangible drilling costs were able to be fully (100%>30%) deducted from a company's expenses for tax purposes. In 1926, a write-off for cost depletion was introduced. That provision allowed oil companies to deduct costs based upon overall gross receipts and not just the actual value of the oil.

I've never heard of a subsidy to O&G or nuclear that came anywhere close to that.

Nuclear is a bit different and, appropriately, my comments were directed to O&G.

On May 11 2014 08:38 GreenHorizons wrote:



Better at least. But still a snapshot.

...the fledgling oil industry in the United States first received government assistance in 1916. That was when intangible drilling costs were able to be fully (100%>30%) deducted from a company's expenses for tax purposes. In 1926, a write-off for cost depletion was introduced. That provision allowed oil companies to deduct costs based upon overall gross receipts and not just the actual value of the oil.

You do realize part of the aggregate subsidies are the one's meant to 'help a fledgling industry' and yet are still being used to this day?

I think even you would admit that we no longer need those subsidies and that no tax-cut is needed to justify removing that particular 1916 subsidy?

Despite your insinuations it appears you are the one who seems to not comprehend the context of subsidies in the energy industry.

I really don't even know what your point is?

Would you mind clearly stating it if you insist on continuing?

Source

Also
I've never heard of a subsidy to O&G or nuclear that came anywhere close to that.

Nuclear is a bit different and, appropriately, my comments were directed to O&G.


Feels like you aren't even trying to appear sincere anymore...

On May 11 2014 09:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

You need to provide context for this data point to be relevant. As I already pointed out, aggregate numbers are heavily influenced by the size of the industry. Moreover, you need to also demonstrate that you are showing numbers in an apples to apples comparison (i.e. if you count depreciation as a subsidy, you should do the same for solar), which I don't think your sources do.


This is strict ignorance on your end. The destructibility of intangible drilling costs and depletion allowances are not strictly subsidies. Nor are they as valuable as the 30% tax credit. Moreover, solar benefits from MACRS which is similar to the O&G depletion allowance.


Yes, and they are tiny (see EIA report) and today they're meant to lessen dependence on foreign oil rather than help a fledgling industry.

They aren't *needed* but I'd have to review the literature in order to tell to what extent they should be considered subsidies.

I don't think you understand finance and accounting well enough to understand the numbers.


My point is that solar is much more heavily subsidized than O&G. That's true not only today but it is also true in a historical context as well. I've seen zero evidence from you that O&G has ever been subsidized as heavily as solar is today.

On May 11 2014 09:18 GreenHorizons wrote:


Well you obviously didn't read the data. You are the one who has provided 0 evidence of their claim (at least with respect to historical context).

I have asked several times and you still have nothing, so I am done with you until you provide it.

I'm also not going to argue over the definition of 'subsidy'or other nuances, when everyone knows perfectly well what we are talking about.

You'll probably have some statement to follow this, but the short lived entertainment of your argument is over for me.

The person I was responding to hasn't opined, so there is no need to continue for myself.

If you want to think renewables enjoy some unprecedented level of government assistance go right ahead, it fits right in with conservative/Republican perceptions and ideas, some of which I've highlighted before. Feel free to believe what you wish but us going back and forth on something like this will go nowhere, as has been illustrated before, when you just stop responding and wait for the next issue when you finally get cornered into an indefensible position.

Don't bother going back to this without a number or % of 'criminals' or work-able people on disability who don't want to work