ecomii

The truth about U.S. energy subsidies

oil-2.jpg

A new study from the Environmental Law Institute in partnership with the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars titled “Estimating U.S. Government Subsidies to Energy Sources: 2002-2008,” sheds light on U.S. energy subsidies.

The study finds that fossil fuels received almost two-and-a-half times more subsidies over the 7 year period than renewables: $72 billion for fossil fuels compared to $29 billion for renewables.

Of equal concern is that 58% of renewables subsidies ($16.8 billion) went towards corn-based ethanol, a fuel that’s carbon credentials are in question and has been linked to increasing world food prices.

Not only do fossil fuels get more subsidies, they also get better subsidies. Fossil fuel subsidies are primarily permanent provisions in the U.S. tax codes. Renewable subsidies, on the other hand, are usually tied in with energy bills and come with an expiration date.

This makes it harder for renewable industry firms to plan long-term, while oil and coal companies can be confident that their financial statements will be padded today, tomorrow, and in perpetuity.

Renewable energy is often knocked for relying on government assistance and, thereby, draining the economy. The rebuttal has always been that fossil fuels get direct and indirect government subsidies as well. These findings puts a face on that rebuttal for me, since I have not seen such a comprehensive study on the subject before.

“These figures raise the pressing question of whether scarce government funds might be better allocated to move the United States towards a low-carbon economy.

Subsidies create a perverse incentive where more of a product/service is supplied (and demanded) than would be the case otherwise. This extra consumption of fossil fuels leads to more pollution and greenhouse gas emissions (negative externalities of consuming fossil fuels).

If these subsidies went towards renewable sources instead of fossil fuels, they would indeed push the U.S. towards a low-carbon economy as the studies authors suggest.

More from ecomii:


Check out Yahoo! Green on Twitter and Facebook.

Email IM Bookmark del.icio.us Digg

You do not appear to have Yahoo! Messenger installed. Click here to download and install it.

Email this article

There is a problem with one or more email addresses entered

Enter email addresses, separated by commas.

There is a problem with the email address entered

Email addresses will only be used to email this information on your behalf and will not be used for any marketing purposes.

Alerts

Get an alert for updates:
  • from this author
  • on Government
  • on Solar Power
  • on Biofuels
  • on Wind Power
  • on Hydro Power
  • on Oil and Gas
  • on Coal

View All Green Alerts »

comments from our community

Showing 1 - 2 of 2 comments

Post Comment
  • Posted by John Thu Oct 1, 2009 4:59pm PDT
    Why does this not surprise me? Sounds to me like Big Oil is still the Big Bully.
    Report Abuse
  • Posted by DANIEL A Sun Oct 4, 2009 1:55am PDT
    The government of United States subsidies Energy and food for its citizens for more than a century, so why does World Bank and IMF go around the world telling governments of developing countries to remove subsidies from energy and agriculture.
    Report Abuse

Leave a Comment:

You must first sign in.

Green Picks Playlist