|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 13 2015 08:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 08:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 13 2015 08:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 08:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 13 2015 07:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 07:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 13 2015 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 06:06 Anesthetic wrote:
@GreenHorizons
I think your on a thin line here, while I understand your points about blacks having unique problems that whites can't understand, at the very same time this can so easily turn into the "Blacks can't be racist" type of thoughts that are just so incredibly dumb.
Things have to be taken in an objective manner and thats quite a big problem with the Social Justice Movement, because even though YOU are using proper arguments/logic, a lot of those movements prefer to just act like nobody except blacks can comment on black issues, even if they have much stronger evidence. While I completely understand that whites will never know what its like to be a minority in this country(I am Mexican myself), there always have to be an effort to remain objective. Blacks can't be racist, they don't have the institutional power to be racist. They can act on prejudices but they lack the institutionalized power to make those prejudices standard practice. But making prejudices standard practice isn't what makes something racist; that only perpetuates the racism and makes it longer lasting (which is certainly worse), but anyone can be racist exactly through the acting of prejudices that you mention. You're right that blacks being racist doesn't really mean as much as a powerful majority being racist against blacks... and that we should certainly be focusing on the bigger picture and the people in charge making sure they can spread equality... but that doesn't give minorities a free pass to be bigots. Since you have been more reasonable than most I'll address what you said. No one is giving anyone a free pass. If you read my post carefully I even said on the individual level it is practically the same. The resistance to white privilege being established as a known reality and that institutionalized racism is a one way street seems to be heavily based on just simply misunderstanding what is even being said. If anything when black people act on prejudices or act 'racist' if you prefer, I think it's a little worse since they have been a victim of such before. I give white people a little more leniency as they are largely clueless through no significant individual fault of their own. However once white people are confronted with white privilege and/or their own racism and refuse to acknowledge it, let alone correct it, that patience rapidly fades. Sorry I was late to the conversation ^^;; After reading through the previous two pages, I see that it's really more of a semantics argument than anything else. I just became immediately worried when you explicitly said "Blacks can't be racist", but your definition of what that entails (racism, that is), seems to involve a much deeper and more institutionalized form (one that I would consider a subset of racism in general). And that's fine; I just think a lot of other people took issue with your more specific criteria for racism instead of the broader dictionary-type definition. After all, I'm sure quite a few people could see your phrase "Blacks can't be racist" as relatively baiting... and it seems many (including myself) took that bait. White privilege (and male privilege, for that matter) is a huge issue in America, and it's historically been such a one-way street, that it's certainly practical to talk about it from the perspective of institutionalized racism. Frankly I don't give a shit about the words. The point being blacks can't be 'systemically/institutionally racist' if that what you want to call it. The arguing over the specific words is just more evidence of the problem. The irredeemably dumb comments like "maybe it's racism, maybe it's not" is the typical bullshit I'm talking about. There's no question racism or 'implicit bias' if you prefer is a real problem. Anyone who suggests otherwise is part of the problem. Well you really should give a shit about the words, because semantics arguments can be huge annoyances and derail the real point you want to make. We have to make sure we're all on the same page with the premises and terminology and definitions we're working with, or else no one is going to take you seriously when you privately redefine a word like racism and make a statement that's demonstrably absurd unless we preemptively read it in some other context that only you're working with. lol I didn't privately redefine the word. It's being taught in colleges across the country, eventually the definitions I'm using will be the more popular and understood meanings than the ones people here are using. + Show Spoiler +Just like accepting white privilege is a reality and that institutionalized implicit biases are a real and significant problem.
When white people become the minority in not just the world, but the US too, things are going to start to look a lot different. Suddenly it will be clear when 'white' replaces some other group how the same exact words suddenly feel racist.
The deaf ears those complaints fall on will be a direct result of the types of comments you see here and elsewhere. I'm not saying they will be right to ignore them, but I won't have much pity for those who's behavior they are imitating.
Yes, and that's why those departments are circling the drain of irrelevancy. People want objective analysis, and with good reason.
|
On May 13 2015 08:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 08:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 13 2015 08:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 08:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 13 2015 07:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 07:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 13 2015 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 06:06 Anesthetic wrote:
@GreenHorizons
I think your on a thin line here, while I understand your points about blacks having unique problems that whites can't understand, at the very same time this can so easily turn into the "Blacks can't be racist" type of thoughts that are just so incredibly dumb.
Things have to be taken in an objective manner and thats quite a big problem with the Social Justice Movement, because even though YOU are using proper arguments/logic, a lot of those movements prefer to just act like nobody except blacks can comment on black issues, even if they have much stronger evidence. While I completely understand that whites will never know what its like to be a minority in this country(I am Mexican myself), there always have to be an effort to remain objective. Blacks can't be racist, they don't have the institutional power to be racist. They can act on prejudices but they lack the institutionalized power to make those prejudices standard practice. But making prejudices standard practice isn't what makes something racist; that only perpetuates the racism and makes it longer lasting (which is certainly worse), but anyone can be racist exactly through the acting of prejudices that you mention. You're right that blacks being racist doesn't really mean as much as a powerful majority being racist against blacks... and that we should certainly be focusing on the bigger picture and the people in charge making sure they can spread equality... but that doesn't give minorities a free pass to be bigots. Since you have been more reasonable than most I'll address what you said. No one is giving anyone a free pass. If you read my post carefully I even said on the individual level it is practically the same. The resistance to white privilege being established as a known reality and that institutionalized racism is a one way street seems to be heavily based on just simply misunderstanding what is even being said. If anything when black people act on prejudices or act 'racist' if you prefer, I think it's a little worse since they have been a victim of such before. I give white people a little more leniency as they are largely clueless through no significant individual fault of their own. However once white people are confronted with white privilege and/or their own racism and refuse to acknowledge it, let alone correct it, that patience rapidly fades. Sorry I was late to the conversation ^^;; After reading through the previous two pages, I see that it's really more of a semantics argument than anything else. I just became immediately worried when you explicitly said "Blacks can't be racist", but your definition of what that entails (racism, that is), seems to involve a much deeper and more institutionalized form (one that I would consider a subset of racism in general). And that's fine; I just think a lot of other people took issue with your more specific criteria for racism instead of the broader dictionary-type definition. After all, I'm sure quite a few people could see your phrase "Blacks can't be racist" as relatively baiting... and it seems many (including myself) took that bait. White privilege (and male privilege, for that matter) is a huge issue in America, and it's historically been such a one-way street, that it's certainly practical to talk about it from the perspective of institutionalized racism. Frankly I don't give a shit about the words. The point being blacks can't be 'systemically/institutionally racist' if that what you want to call it. The arguing over the specific words is just more evidence of the problem. The irredeemably dumb comments like "maybe it's racism, maybe it's not" is the typical bullshit I'm talking about. There's no question racism or 'implicit bias' if you prefer is a real problem. Anyone who suggests otherwise is part of the problem. Well you really should give a shit about the words, because semantics arguments can be huge annoyances and derail the real point you want to make. We have to make sure we're all on the same page with the premises and terminology and definitions we're working with, or else no one is going to take you seriously when you privately redefine a word like racism and make a statement that's demonstrably absurd unless we preemptively read it in some other context that only you're working with. lol I didn't privately redefine the word. It's being taught in colleges across the country, eventually the definitions I'm using will be the more popular and understood meanings than the ones people here are using. Just like accepting white privilege is a reality and that institutionalized implicit biases are a real and significant problem. When white people become the minority in not just the world, but the US too, things are going to start to look a lot different. Suddenly it will be clear when 'white' replaces some other group how the same exact words suddenly feel racist. The deaf ears those complaints fall on will be a direct result of the types of comments you see here and elsewhere. I'm not saying they will be right to ignore them, but I won't have much pity for those who's behavior they are imitating.
White people are a minority in the world.
|
On May 13 2015 10:43 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 08:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 08:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 13 2015 08:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 08:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 13 2015 07:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 07:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 13 2015 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 06:06 Anesthetic wrote:
@GreenHorizons
I think your on a thin line here, while I understand your points about blacks having unique problems that whites can't understand, at the very same time this can so easily turn into the "Blacks can't be racist" type of thoughts that are just so incredibly dumb.
Things have to be taken in an objective manner and thats quite a big problem with the Social Justice Movement, because even though YOU are using proper arguments/logic, a lot of those movements prefer to just act like nobody except blacks can comment on black issues, even if they have much stronger evidence. While I completely understand that whites will never know what its like to be a minority in this country(I am Mexican myself), there always have to be an effort to remain objective. Blacks can't be racist, they don't have the institutional power to be racist. They can act on prejudices but they lack the institutionalized power to make those prejudices standard practice. But making prejudices standard practice isn't what makes something racist; that only perpetuates the racism and makes it longer lasting (which is certainly worse), but anyone can be racist exactly through the acting of prejudices that you mention. You're right that blacks being racist doesn't really mean as much as a powerful majority being racist against blacks... and that we should certainly be focusing on the bigger picture and the people in charge making sure they can spread equality... but that doesn't give minorities a free pass to be bigots. Since you have been more reasonable than most I'll address what you said. No one is giving anyone a free pass. If you read my post carefully I even said on the individual level it is practically the same. The resistance to white privilege being established as a known reality and that institutionalized racism is a one way street seems to be heavily based on just simply misunderstanding what is even being said. If anything when black people act on prejudices or act 'racist' if you prefer, I think it's a little worse since they have been a victim of such before. I give white people a little more leniency as they are largely clueless through no significant individual fault of their own. However once white people are confronted with white privilege and/or their own racism and refuse to acknowledge it, let alone correct it, that patience rapidly fades. Sorry I was late to the conversation ^^;; After reading through the previous two pages, I see that it's really more of a semantics argument than anything else. I just became immediately worried when you explicitly said "Blacks can't be racist", but your definition of what that entails (racism, that is), seems to involve a much deeper and more institutionalized form (one that I would consider a subset of racism in general). And that's fine; I just think a lot of other people took issue with your more specific criteria for racism instead of the broader dictionary-type definition. After all, I'm sure quite a few people could see your phrase "Blacks can't be racist" as relatively baiting... and it seems many (including myself) took that bait. White privilege (and male privilege, for that matter) is a huge issue in America, and it's historically been such a one-way street, that it's certainly practical to talk about it from the perspective of institutionalized racism. Frankly I don't give a shit about the words. The point being blacks can't be 'systemically/institutionally racist' if that what you want to call it. The arguing over the specific words is just more evidence of the problem. The irredeemably dumb comments like "maybe it's racism, maybe it's not" is the typical bullshit I'm talking about. There's no question racism or 'implicit bias' if you prefer is a real problem. Anyone who suggests otherwise is part of the problem. Well you really should give a shit about the words, because semantics arguments can be huge annoyances and derail the real point you want to make. We have to make sure we're all on the same page with the premises and terminology and definitions we're working with, or else no one is going to take you seriously when you privately redefine a word like racism and make a statement that's demonstrably absurd unless we preemptively read it in some other context that only you're working with. lol I didn't privately redefine the word. It's being taught in colleges across the country, eventually the definitions I'm using will be the more popular and understood meanings than the ones people here are using. Just like accepting white privilege is a reality and that institutionalized implicit biases are a real and significant problem. When white people become the minority in not just the world, but the US too, things are going to start to look a lot different. Suddenly it will be clear when 'white' replaces some other group how the same exact words suddenly feel racist. The deaf ears those complaints fall on will be a direct result of the types of comments you see here and elsewhere. I'm not saying they will be right to ignore them, but I won't have much pity for those who's behavior they are imitating. White people are a minority in the world.
I'll assume it's how I wrote it that resulted in you likely thinking that's not what I said. Just wait till the global influence more closely matches the population (particularly in a non-white majority America). It'll be a lot more clear I'm sure.
|
Senate Democrats on Tuesday delivered a stinging blow to President Obama’s trade agenda by voting to prevent the chamber from picking up fast-track legislation.
A motion to cut off a filibuster and proceed to the trade bill fell short of a 60-vote hurdle in the 52-45 vote. Sen. Tom Carper (Del.) was the only Democrat to back it.
Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) switched his vote from yes to no to reserve his ability to return to the measure at a later date.
Fast-track is a top legislative priority for the White House, but it has run into significant Senate opposition that has been led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
It faces even more opposition from Democrats in the House, and the surprise Senate failure will raise doubts about whether the legislation will make its way through Congress.
Labor unions and other left-leaning groups have declared war on the fast-track bill, which they argue has shipped jobs overseas. The Senate is generally a more pro-trade body than the House, and it has been easier to move trade agreements through the upper chamber.
The standoff Tuesday focused on procedure, though there is significant opposition to fast-track itself in the Democratic conference.
Senate Democrats demanded that McConnell combine the fast-track bill with three other pieces of trade legislation, including a customs bill that would address currency manipulation.
The opposition included Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and other pro-trade Democrats who back the fast-track bill.
“The group is concerned about the lack of a commitment to trade enforcement, which is specifically the customs bill,” Wyden told reporters in explaining his opposition.
McConnell has offered to bring to the floor a package combining fast-track, which is also known as Trade Promotion Authority, and Trade Adjustment Assistance, which helps workers displaced by foreign competition.
But McConnell has refused to combine those bills with the customs and enforcement act, which includes language cracking down on currency manipulation, and a package of trade preferences for sub-Saharan Africa.
“Until there is a path to get all four bills passed ... we will, certainly most of us, have to vote no,” Wyden said.
Wyden was joined by Sens. Michael Bennet (Colo.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Bill Nelson (Fla.) and Mark Warner (Va.).
The White House downplayed the defeat, with press secretary Josh Earnest describing it as a “procedural snafu.”
“It is not unprecedented for the U.S. Senate to encounter procedural snafus,” he said. “We're going to continue to work through these challenges.”
Earnest dismissed the notion that the vote is a sign the president's aggressive sales pitch to Democrats on trade has fallen flat.
“I would urge you to withhold judgement about the president’s persuasion ability until we’ve had an opportunity until we’ve had a chance to advance this legislation,” Earnest said.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Wyden, the ranking Democrat on the panel, tried to hash out a last-minute agreement to allow the trade package to come to the floor but were unsuccessful.
Hatch said he would urge McConnell to pull the trade package from the floor if Democrats block it.
It could return in the next two weeks but Tuesday’s setback means it will be very difficult to pass trade legislation before the Memorial Day recess.
Two Republican presidential candidates, Sens. Ted Cruz (Texas) and Rand Paul (Ky.), voted in favor of moving to the trade bill.
Another candidate, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), missed the vote, as did Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who is considering a White House run. Rubio and Graham also missed Monday's votes.
Source
2016 potentials steering well clear of this one lol.
Edit: Aside from Warren of course!
Edit 2: err nvm not really true (Cruz, Paul) :D
|
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) said Tuesday that he misinterpreted the question when he was asked earlier this week by Fox News whether "knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion" of Iraq. But given a second chance to answer the question, Bush said he was unsure what he would do with 20/20 hindsight.
Bush, in that first interview with Megyn Kelly on Monday, said he would have authorized the invasion. But in a radio interview with Sean Hannity on Tuesday the likely presidential candidate said he didn't interpret the question correctly.
"I interpreted the question wrong, I guess. I was talking about given what people knew then, would you have done it? Rather than knowing what we know now. And knowing what we know now, clearly there were mistakes as it related to faulty intelligence in the lead up to the war and the lack of focus on security," Bush told Hannity. "My brother's admitted this. And we have to learn from that."
Bush then pivoted to praise his brother's troop surge in Iraq saying it brought "stability and security to Iraq which was missing during the early days of the United States engagement there."
Source
|
The world’s biggest and most profitable fossil fuel companies are receiving huge and rising subsidies from US taxpayers, a practice slammed as absurd by a presidential candidate given the threat of climate change.
A Guardian investigation of three specific projects, run by Shell, ExxonMobil and Marathon Petroleum, has revealed that the subsidises were all granted by politicians who received significant campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry.
The Guardian has found that:
A proposed Shell petrochemical refinery in Pennsylvania is in line for $1.6bn (£1bn) in state subsidy, according to a deal struck in 2012 when the company made an annual profit of $26.8bn.
ExxonMobil’s upgrades to its Baton Rouge refinery in Louisiana are benefitting from $119m of state subsidy, with the support starting in 2011, when the company made a $41bn profit.
A jobs subsidy scheme worth $78m to Marathon Petroleum in Ohio began in 2011, when the company made $2.4bn in profit.
“At a time when scientists tell us we need to reduce carbon pollution to prevent catastrophic climate change, it is absurd to provide massive taxpayer subsidies that pad fossil-fuel companies’ already enormous profits,” said senator Bernie Sanders, who announced on 30 April he is running for president.
Sanders, with representative Keith Ellison, recently proposed an End Polluter Welfare Act, which they say would cut $135bn of US subsidies for fossil fuel companies over the next decade. “Between 2010 and 2014, the oil, coal, gas, utility, and natural resource extraction industries spent $1.8bn on lobbying, much of it in defence of these giveaways,” according to Sanders and Ellison.
In April, the president of the World Bank called for the subsidies to be scrapped immediately as poorer nations were feeling “the boot of climate change on their neck”. Globally in 2013, the most recent figures available,the coal, oil and gas industries benefited from subsidies of $550bn, four times those given to renewable energy.
“Subsidies to fossil fuel companies are completely inappropriate in this day and age,” said Stephen Kretzmann, executive director of Oil Change International, an NGO that analyses the costs of fossil fuels. OCI found in 2014 that US taxpayers were subsidising fossil fuel exploration and production alone by $21bn a year. In 2009, President Barack Obama called on the G20 to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies but since then UN federal subsidies have risen by 45%.
“Climate science is clear that the vast majority of existing reserves will have to stay in the ground,” Kretzmann said. “Yet our government spends many tens of billions of our tax dollars – every year – making it more profitable for the fossil fuel industry to produce more.”
Tax credits, defined as a subsidy by the World Trade Organisation, are a key route of support for the fossil fuel industry. Using the subsidy tracker tool created by the Good Jobs First group, the Guardian examined some of the biggest subsidies for specific projects.
Shell’s proposed $4bn plant in Pennsylvania is set to benefit from tax credits of $66m a year for 25 years. Shell has bought the site and has 10 supply contracts in place lasting up to 20 years, including from fracking companies extracting shale gas in the Marcellus shale field. The deal was struck by the then Republican governor, Tom Corbett, who received over $1m in campaign donations from the oil and gas industry. According to Guardian analysis of data compiled by Common Cause Pennsylvania, Shell have spent $1.2m on lobbying in Pennsylvania since 2011.
A Shell spokesman said: “Shell supports and endorses incentive programmes provided by state and local authorities that improve the business climate for capital investment, economic expansion and job growth. Shell would not have access to these incentive programmes without the support and approval from the representative state and local jurisdictions.”
ExxonMobil’s Baton Rouge refinery is the second-largest in the US. Since 2011, it has been benefitting from exemptions from industrial taxes, worth $118.9m over 10 years, according to the Good Jobs First database. The Republican governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal has expressed his pride in attracting investment from ExxonMobil. In state election campaigns between 2003 and 2013, he received 231 contributions from oil and gas companies and executives totalling $1,019,777, according to a list compiled by environmental groups.
A spokesman for ExxonMobil said: “ExxonMobil will not respond to Guardian inquiries because of its lack of objectivity on climate change reporting demonstrated by its campaign against companies that provide energy necessary for modern life, including newspapers.”
The Guardian is running a campaign asking the world’s biggest health charities, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust, to sell their fossil fuel investments on the basis that it is misguided to invest in companies dedicated to finding more oil, gas and coal when current reserves are already several times greater than can be safely burned. Many philanthropic organisations have already divested from fossil fuels, including the Rockefeller Brothers Fund whose wealth derives from Standard Oil, which went on to become ExxonMobil.
In Ohio, Marathon Petroleum is benefitting from a 15-year tax credit for retaining 1,650 jobs and a 10-year tax credit for creating 100 new jobs. The subsidy is worth $78.5m, according to the Good Jobs First database. “I think Marathon always wanted to be here,” Republican governor John Kasich said in 2011. “All we’re doing is helping them.” In 2011, Kasich was named as the top recipient of oil and gas donations in Ohio, having received $213, 519. The same year Kasich appointed Marathon Petroleum’s CEO to the board of Jobs Ohio, a semi-private group “in charge of the economic growth in the state of Ohio”.
A spokesman for Marathon Petroleum said: “The tax credit recognises the enormous contribution we make to the Ohio economy through the taxes we pay and the well-paying jobs we maintain. We have more than doubled the 100 new jobs we committed to create.” The spokesman said the company paid billions of dollars in income and other taxes every year across the US.
“Big oil, gas, and coal have huge influence on politicians and governments and they get that influence the old fashioned way – they buy it,” said Kretzmann. “Through campaign finance, lobbying, advertising and superpac spending, the industry has many ways to influence candidates and government officials seeking re-election.”
He said fossil fuel subsidies were endemic in the US: “Every single well, pipeline, refinery, coal and gas plant in the country is heavily subsidised.Big Fossil’s lobbyists have done their jobs well for the last century.”
Ben Schreiber, at Friends of the Earth US, said. “There is a vibrant discussion about the best way to keep fossil fuels in the ground – from carbon taxation to divestment – but ending state and federal corporate welfare for polluters is one of the easiest places to start.”
Schreiber also defended subsidies for renewable energy: “Fossil fuels are a mature technology while renewable energy is nascent and still developing. It makes sense to subsidise technologies that are going to help solve climate change, but not to do the same for those that are causing the problem.”
Source
|
On May 13 2015 11:22 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +
The world’s biggest and most profitable fossil fuel companies are receiving huge and rising subsidies from US taxpayers, a practice slammed as absurd by a presidential candidate given the threat of climate change.
A Guardian investigation of three specific projects, run by Shell, ExxonMobil and Marathon Petroleum, has revealed that the subsidises were all granted by politicians who received significant campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry.
The Guardian has found that:
A proposed Shell petrochemical refinery in Pennsylvania is in line for $1.6bn (£1bn) in state subsidy, according to a deal struck in 2012 when the company made an annual profit of $26.8bn.
ExxonMobil’s upgrades to its Baton Rouge refinery in Louisiana are benefitting from $119m of state subsidy, with the support starting in 2011, when the company made a $41bn profit.
A jobs subsidy scheme worth $78m to Marathon Petroleum in Ohio began in 2011, when the company made $2.4bn in profit.
“At a time when scientists tell us we need to reduce carbon pollution to prevent catastrophic climate change, it is absurd to provide massive taxpayer subsidies that pad fossil-fuel companies’ already enormous profits,” said senator Bernie Sanders, who announced on 30 April he is running for president.
Sanders, with representative Keith Ellison, recently proposed an End Polluter Welfare Act, which they say would cut $135bn of US subsidies for fossil fuel companies over the next decade. “Between 2010 and 2014, the oil, coal, gas, utility, and natural resource extraction industries spent $1.8bn on lobbying, much of it in defence of these giveaways,” according to Sanders and Ellison.
In April, the president of the World Bank called for the subsidies to be scrapped immediately as poorer nations were feeling “the boot of climate change on their neck”. Globally in 2013, the most recent figures available,the coal, oil and gas industries benefited from subsidies of $550bn, four times those given to renewable energy.
“Subsidies to fossil fuel companies are completely inappropriate in this day and age,” said Stephen Kretzmann, executive director of Oil Change International, an NGO that analyses the costs of fossil fuels. OCI found in 2014 that US taxpayers were subsidising fossil fuel exploration and production alone by $21bn a year. In 2009, President Barack Obama called on the G20 to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies but since then UN federal subsidies have risen by 45%.
“Climate science is clear that the vast majority of existing reserves will have to stay in the ground,” Kretzmann said. “Yet our government spends many tens of billions of our tax dollars – every year – making it more profitable for the fossil fuel industry to produce more.”
Tax credits, defined as a subsidy by the World Trade Organisation, are a key route of support for the fossil fuel industry. Using the subsidy tracker tool created by the Good Jobs First group, the Guardian examined some of the biggest subsidies for specific projects.
Shell’s proposed $4bn plant in Pennsylvania is set to benefit from tax credits of $66m a year for 25 years. Shell has bought the site and has 10 supply contracts in place lasting up to 20 years, including from fracking companies extracting shale gas in the Marcellus shale field. The deal was struck by the then Republican governor, Tom Corbett, who received over $1m in campaign donations from the oil and gas industry. According to Guardian analysis of data compiled by Common Cause Pennsylvania, Shell have spent $1.2m on lobbying in Pennsylvania since 2011.
A Shell spokesman said: “Shell supports and endorses incentive programmes provided by state and local authorities that improve the business climate for capital investment, economic expansion and job growth. Shell would not have access to these incentive programmes without the support and approval from the representative state and local jurisdictions.”
ExxonMobil’s Baton Rouge refinery is the second-largest in the US. Since 2011, it has been benefitting from exemptions from industrial taxes, worth $118.9m over 10 years, according to the Good Jobs First database. The Republican governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal has expressed his pride in attracting investment from ExxonMobil. In state election campaigns between 2003 and 2013, he received 231 contributions from oil and gas companies and executives totalling $1,019,777, according to a list compiled by environmental groups.
A spokesman for ExxonMobil said: “ExxonMobil will not respond to Guardian inquiries because of its lack of objectivity on climate change reporting demonstrated by its campaign against companies that provide energy necessary for modern life, including newspapers.”
The Guardian is running a campaign asking the world’s biggest health charities, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust, to sell their fossil fuel investments on the basis that it is misguided to invest in companies dedicated to finding more oil, gas and coal when current reserves are already several times greater than can be safely burned. Many philanthropic organisations have already divested from fossil fuels, including the Rockefeller Brothers Fund whose wealth derives from Standard Oil, which went on to become ExxonMobil.
In Ohio, Marathon Petroleum is benefitting from a 15-year tax credit for retaining 1,650 jobs and a 10-year tax credit for creating 100 new jobs. The subsidy is worth $78.5m, according to the Good Jobs First database. “I think Marathon always wanted to be here,” Republican governor John Kasich said in 2011. “All we’re doing is helping them.” In 2011, Kasich was named as the top recipient of oil and gas donations in Ohio, having received $213, 519. The same year Kasich appointed Marathon Petroleum’s CEO to the board of Jobs Ohio, a semi-private group “in charge of the economic growth in the state of Ohio”.
A spokesman for Marathon Petroleum said: “The tax credit recognises the enormous contribution we make to the Ohio economy through the taxes we pay and the well-paying jobs we maintain. We have more than doubled the 100 new jobs we committed to create.” The spokesman said the company paid billions of dollars in income and other taxes every year across the US.
“Big oil, gas, and coal have huge influence on politicians and governments and they get that influence the old fashioned way – they buy it,” said Kretzmann. “Through campaign finance, lobbying, advertising and superpac spending, the industry has many ways to influence candidates and government officials seeking re-election.”
He said fossil fuel subsidies were endemic in the US: “Every single well, pipeline, refinery, coal and gas plant in the country is heavily subsidised.Big Fossil’s lobbyists have done their jobs well for the last century.”
Ben Schreiber, at Friends of the Earth US, said. “There is a vibrant discussion about the best way to keep fossil fuels in the ground – from carbon taxation to divestment – but ending state and federal corporate welfare for polluters is one of the easiest places to start.”
Schreiber also defended subsidies for renewable energy: “Fossil fuels are a mature technology while renewable energy is nascent and still developing. It makes sense to subsidise technologies that are going to help solve climate change, but not to do the same for those that are causing the problem.”
Source
lol, some myths never die.
|
On May 13 2015 11:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
lol, some myths never die.
Climate change aside, does this really make sense?
A proposed Shell petrochemical refinery in Pennsylvania is in line for $1.6bn (£1bn) in state subsidy, according to a deal struck in 2012 when the company made an annual profit of $26.8bn.
|
|
|
On May 13 2015 11:28 screamingpalm wrote:Climate change aside, does this really make sense? Show nested quote +
A proposed Shell petrochemical refinery in Pennsylvania is in line for $1.6bn (£1bn) in state subsidy, according to a deal struck in 2012 when the company made an annual profit of $26.8bn.
I'm generally pretty skeptical of those type of deals, but they aren't done because of anything relating to the company's profit. They're done to get business to locate to a specific area and so you'd have to look into the specifics of the deal to see if the state's getting its money's worth. They're often structured as a tax break over a number of years in return for a business that will send a lot of money back to the state in direct and indirect taxes.
Edit: Tax credits, defined as a subsidy by the World Trade Organisation, are a key route of support for the fossil fuel industry. Using the subsidy tracker tool created by the Good Jobs First group, the Guardian examined some of the biggest subsidies for specific projects.
So likely rubbish then.
Edit: The Guardian is running a campaign asking the world’s biggest health charities, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust, to sell their fossil fuel investments on the basis that it is misguided to invest in companies dedicated to finding more oil, gas and coal when current reserves are already several times greater than can be safely burned. Many philanthropic organisations have already divested from fossil fuels, including the Rockefeller Brothers Fund whose wealth derives from Standard Oil, which went on to become ExxonMobil.
Meaning The Guardian is a biased source on the topic.
Edit: The Guardian also referenced the World Bank complaining about Oil and Gas subsidies, but failed to mention that the World Banks comments were mainly aimed at developing countries that spend a crap-ton on consumer subsidies for energy, rather than anything the US is doing. Shoddy, biased reporting all around.
|
On May 13 2015 11:28 screamingpalm wrote:Climate change aside, does this really make sense? Show nested quote +
A proposed Shell petrochemical refinery in Pennsylvania is in line for $1.6bn (£1bn) in state subsidy, according to a deal struck in 2012 when the company made an annual profit of $26.8bn.
Well, the "Oil Companies swim in subsidies and profits" thing is a myth. Their margins are actually quite small, they make big profits almost entirely on volume.
|
On May 13 2015 11:40 cLutZ wrote:
Well, the "Oil Companies swim in subsidies and profits" thing is a myth. Their margins are actually quite small, they make big profits almost entirely on volume.
Interesting, that refutes pretty much everything I've seen on the issue lol. Agree with Jonny about the Guardian though.
|
On May 13 2015 11:54 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 11:40 cLutZ wrote:
Well, the "Oil Companies swim in subsidies and profits" thing is a myth. Their margins are actually quite small, they make big profits almost entirely on volume. Interesting, that refutes pretty much everything I've seen on the issue lol. Agree with Jonny about the Guardian though.
I made a somewhat lengthy post on O&G vs solar subsidies about a year ago. I wasn't looking at the state subsidies the Guardian was referencing, but those are generally available to any industry. IIRC, Rhode Island did that for the now defunct 38 Studios. For states, it is mainly about making sure a particular business is located in their state or a particular part of their state, because the business meets some public policy goal or they think it will be a good long-term revenue generator.
|
Thanks Jonny. I suppose subsidies are a good investment for generating revenue, even if exploitative and double dipping the working class. :D
|
On May 13 2015 12:20 screamingpalm wrote:
Thanks Jonny. I suppose subsidies are a good investment for generating revenue, even if exploitative and double dipping the working class. :D
You shouldn't say that. While we should assume that at least some of the benefits of the subsidy will go to the business, it is also likely that the benefits of the subsidy will have a positive impact on the employees of that business in the form of higher compensation, and the consumers of the business in the form of lower prices.
|
On May 13 2015 12:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You shouldn't say that. While we should assume that at least some of the benefits of the subsidy will go to the business, it is also likely that the benefits of the subsidy will have a positive impact on the employees of that business in the form of higher compensation, and the consumers of the business in the form of lower prices.
Not sure about the impact of employee compensation, and I'd assume there must be many examples of subsidized corporations that pay minimum wage, but fair point about lower prices (though it sounds like they could stand to be much lower judging from profit margins :D). I'd imagine subsidies could enable at least some amount of regulatory muscle, but public transportation costs have also been steadily increasing (at least locally for me) every year in parallel to O&G profits.
|
|
|
On May 13 2015 10:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 09:22 Wolfstan wrote:On May 13 2015 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 09:01 Anesthetic wrote:On May 13 2015 08:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 08:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 13 2015 08:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 08:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 13 2015 07:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 07:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
But making prejudices standard practice isn't what makes something racist; that only perpetuates the racism and makes it longer lasting (which is certainly worse), but anyone can be racist exactly through the acting of prejudices that you mention.
You're right that blacks being racist doesn't really mean as much as a powerful majority being racist against blacks... and that we should certainly be focusing on the bigger picture and the people in charge making sure they can spread equality... but that doesn't give minorities a free pass to be bigots. Since you have been more reasonable than most I'll address what you said. No one is giving anyone a free pass. If you read my post carefully I even said on the individual level it is practically the same. The resistance to white privilege being established as a known reality and that institutionalized racism is a one way street seems to be heavily based on just simply misunderstanding what is even being said. If anything when black people act on prejudices or act 'racist' if you prefer, I think it's a little worse since they have been a victim of such before. I give white people a little more leniency as they are largely clueless through no significant individual fault of their own. However once white people are confronted with white privilege and/or their own racism and refuse to acknowledge it, let alone correct it, that patience rapidly fades. Sorry I was late to the conversation ^^;; After reading through the previous two pages, I see that it's really more of a semantics argument than anything else. I just became immediately worried when you explicitly said "Blacks can't be racist", but your definition of what that entails (racism, that is), seems to involve a much deeper and more institutionalized form (one that I would consider a subset of racism in general). And that's fine; I just think a lot of other people took issue with your more specific criteria for racism instead of the broader dictionary-type definition. After all, I'm sure quite a few people could see your phrase "Blacks can't be racist" as relatively baiting... and it seems many (including myself) took that bait. White privilege (and male privilege, for that matter) is a huge issue in America, and it's historically been such a one-way street, that it's certainly practical to talk about it from the perspective of institutionalized racism. Frankly I don't give a shit about the words. The point being blacks can't be 'systemically/institutionally racist' if that what you want to call it. The arguing over the specific words is just more evidence of the problem. The irredeemably dumb comments like "maybe it's racism, maybe it's not" is the typical bullshit I'm talking about. There's no question racism or 'implicit bias' if you prefer is a real problem. Anyone who suggests otherwise is part of the problem. Well you really should give a shit about the words, because semantics arguments can be huge annoyances and derail the real point you want to make. We have to make sure we're all on the same page with the premises and terminology and definitions we're working with, or else no one is going to take you seriously when you privately redefine a word like racism and make a statement that's demonstrably absurd unless we preemptively read it in some other context that only you're working with. lol I didn't privately redefine the word. It's being taught in colleges across the country, eventually the definitions I'm using will be the more popular and understood meanings than the ones people here are using. Just like accepting white privilege is a reality and that institutionalized implicit biases are a real and significant problem. When white people become the minority in not just the world, but the US too, things are going to start to look a lot different. Suddenly it will be clear when 'white' replaces some other group how the same exact words suddenly feel racist. The deaf ears those complaints fall on will be a direct result of the types of comments you see here and elsewhere. I'm not saying they will be right to ignore them, but I won't have much pity for those who's behavior they are imitating. Oh buddy, you think the system is racist now? Wait till Mexican people become the majority. Just look at LA and such areas to look at whats up and coming, blacks have been threatened by death to get out of compton and other similar areas by Mexican people moving in, and your not gonna be able to guilt trip my people with "white privilege". People who feel guilty about simply having white/male/whatever privilege are being idiotic. The point of pointing out privilege isn't to make people feel guilty or bad, the point is that it's hard to see and people need help seeing it, so they can address it. The only reason people should feel guilty about privilege is if they deny it exists or if they have no desire for it to change. You're probably right though about there being a divide between light skinned brown people and dark skinned brown/black people, but people are going to be so mixed, white will be the new black, in that 'white' people will be easy to spot and single out, far more so than trying to tell if a black person has Mexican (or Hispanic) heritage. Light skinned non-whites will be pressured to darken up their bloodline like white's were/are encouraged to keep their blood lines 'pure'. That 'purity' will be what makes whites so easy to single out, not to mention as time passes exclusively white people will have a higher and higher chance of being that way specifically due to racist teachings. Giving non-whites all the ammunition they need to paint the remaining 'pure' whites as savages. So what's the goal? A colorblind society or not? You seem to be under the delusion that there will be lynchings of white people or something. I think what you mean in your head when you say 'colorblind' is more or less what I'd prefer, so I'd say yes. However, what 'colorblind' usually means is ignore racial issues entirely and think that it puts us at, near, or closer to some 'null racism' point, which I find preposterous, so the answer would be no or 'not'. So it's a bit of a loaded question like the "Can black people be (institutionally and systemically) 'racist'. We have to clearly understand what 'colorblind' means to both of us, before we can move forward to the more direct question. In general I don't think robbing people of their individual experience by being 'blind' to it is helpful, but the idea of not using 'race' for generalizing purposes is generally positive. That got long lol. + Show Spoiler +Social roles (such as gender) are a larger issue that lurk behind our constructions of race, but as we are still coming to grips with the idea that race is a social construct, the idea that binary genders and specific social rolls also have huge socially constructed (rather than physiologically or economically based as most of us are taught) foundations are far from being accepted generally, I try not to pick those fights. + Show Spoiler + I do get a small amount of glee when I see them surface occasionally before being slapped down by 'saner minds'. Sooner or later you guys (or we if you prefer) are going to freak out. Paranoia will set in and those white 'kkk like' militia's rhetoric will sound more and more reasonable. They will rapidly swell in ranks and we will have to confront that reality in this country. One might ask why would the ranks swell? Well see, implicit bias is a big problem. White people don't realize this yet because the vast majority of implicit biases work in their favor. (There are similar issues with gender, occupation, etc...) This is especially true for white men. That is going to change, and privileged people (again white men will bear the brunt of this) are not going to like it. Stuff they were totally fine with (or did nothing to change) are suddenly going to be turned upside-down. Just wait to see what laws look like when 50% of congress is Women and non-whites (we very well might not live quite that long). Then imagine what it will look like when it's 55% women and 75% non-'pure' white. It's not to say they are going to go all black panther or whatever, just that the longer we spend arguing over whether implicit bias is a problem and whether it should/can be addressed and the urgency the less time white people have to make it stick before they end up on the wrong side of it. If you don't think it's a problem just look how angry even the most obviously racist people get (talking crazy uncle, "Muslim Kenyan" types) get if you call out that just what they are saying (not them as a person) is racist. Then think about how shitty it feels to get lumped in with them. That's just the beginning of what I'm talking about. Gay marriage is another one. (I should include Cis-Hetero before 'white male' but I'm speaking to my audience) Climate change, pre-history, religion, etc... They are all dominoes, falling, leading to the inevitable. It's almost as easy to say 'white people are racist' as it was to say 'black people are lazy' in the 90's. They are both absurd statements on their face for innumerable reasons but that doesn't change how/where they are acceptable things to say. That's again, just the beginning. TLDR: Embrace 'check your privilege', you'll want it when you need it. (or your kids/grand kids/great grand kids)
Check your privilege is so incredibly stupid as it ignores gaping socioeconomic factors and paints everything on one axis alone that is increasingly not relevant in today's society. There are certainly institutionalized problems along the lines of the Drug War and other State-policing, but most people will agree that it is indeed a problem, but to say everyone of white skin has an advantage over minorities is quite oblivious to real world facts. Tell that to the people of Appalachia who are far poorer than the average black person and have been for many generations. There is also an increasing amount of prejudice against rural folk from urbanites both politically and socially and it's not hard to spot on this forum either. The world is much more complex than simply telling white people that they're inherently advantaged without providing for all the numerous ways that blacks simply have it better as well. Tell that to the students who are white who had better scores and grades, but didn't get accepted because of affirmative action. Blacks are also far above the mean when it comes to professional sports, but I don't see anyone saying that's a problem, though the opposite is quite when it happens to be whites being a majority of a sport (see: baseball/hockey).
FPTP voting system also tend to overly exaggerate local majorities, so that's why you see disparate demographics at the federal political level. I see you mentioned Republicans about blacks, but you also ignore all the racism pointed at GOP Blacks like Mia Love and JC Watts from uncle tom to traitor, etc. The road isn't as neatly defined as you make it to be.
Check your privilege is incredibly racist towards all those poor white people that have none of this 'privilege' you speak of.
|
On May 13 2015 13:16 Wegandi wrote:
Check your privilege is incredibly racist towards all those poor white people that have none of this 'privilege' you speak of.
Properly described, it encompasses all forms of privilege. Your idea that it is intrinsically racist is a disservice to the notion.
|
On May 13 2015 12:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 12:20 screamingpalm wrote:
Thanks Jonny. I suppose subsidies are a good investment for generating revenue, even if exploitative and double dipping the working class. :D You shouldn't say that. While we should assume that at least some of the benefits of the subsidy will go to the business, it is also likely that the benefits of the subsidy will have a positive impact on the employees of that business in the form of higher compensation, and the consumers of the business in the form of lower prices.
This argument is quite absurd. It's the equivalent of 'Yay, I have free healthcare, but I pay 65% in taxes! Woo! FREE!'. No, when the State is giving these companies billions of your dollars, it doesn't make things 'cheaper', since you've all ready paid for a big chunk all ready. Corporate Welfare is a stupid concept that makes an argument for the blatant thievery from the people and spins it as a benefit that they're being stolen from - as if they're too stupid to spend and invest their own money with their own preferential values. What happens if these people don't actually want what is subsidized like say, corn products, that end up being in everything and everywhere? It's a total manipulation of the market process and of price discovery and is not a benefit to the average person. They should all be ended, and the money spent sent back to the people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
