Clean energy jobs outnumber fossil fuel jobs in most US states

How much of our tax $$$$ goes to military personnel to make oil? It's quite costly.

 

And your graph backing your claim? Oh, it doesn't exist you say.

 

Well, that sure explains it all.

If I asked you to explain water in a swimming pool and your retort was to toss a stick of dynamite there and tell me to study water, it is like what you pulled.

I could point out to you the increases to oil business during Obama's time but doubt you want to find that out.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsa...-programs-that-drive-innovation/#6bafbed83978

If not for gov't funding, many things may never make it to market, or take an extremely long time.
For if one can't make a profit, the don't take on the task.

 

41 states and the District of Columbia, what the hell do they do in DC? Suck money from the government.

 

Why didn't you show that then?

Please do not claim DailyKos is respectable journalism.

There is no proof that Trump got Russian help. Did you not study Wikileaks?

 

That's just it, in 2008 the average tax on a gallon of gas was 40 cents and 45.5 in California. I would imagine percentage wise it more today. Until renewables can replace the tax revenue of fossils the preferred energy will be fossils. To stress the point, in my state the average mark up on a gallon of gas at the distributor is 13 cents, that's why every fuel station is a convenience store like 7/11, they can't stay afloat just selling fuel because state and federal tax bleed off a larger portion of the profits!

 

Well until something is cited then it's generally considered opinion or rhetoric, might be to ones advantage to volunteer a source once in a while just to keep up appearances

 

Didn't read thread with preposterous, false premise. Would love to hear what they are including within "clean energy" to found the obvious lie narrative in the OP. All computer networks? cellular tech? Or what they -aren't- including in traditional energy... that might be how they craft the lie narrative on second thought, by falsely narrowing down the definitions of traditional energy industries.

Who knows, not going to waste the time debunking something so obviously fabricated. Rest assured, it's going to be something really bogus. There are -not- more "clean energy" jobs than traditional energy jobs when the terms are defined in any kind of honest way, nowhere even REMOTELY close. Keep peddling horsesht though, amusing.

 

You mean like Indiana's $150 registration fee for those vehicles, which have a federal tax credit of $2,500-$7,500?

 

The article you cited seems to generally agree with me:

"Government procurement is notoriously inefficient, especially with regard to military contracts, because there are multiple points of failure. First, specifications need to go through a cumbersome bureaucratic process, then bids are solicited and assessed not only on their merits, but amidst a political and greed ridden morass.

In the case of technology, the problem is especially acute. Much like large corporations, government bureaucrats are ill equipped to judge the value of nascent technologies and, by the time they are finished wrangling through the procurement process, the technology is often already out of date."

 

You talking about the credit that won't exist under Trump's tax plan?

 

Government estimates of that sort are often inflated, but OK, let's take it at face value - the government missed $50billion in foregone revenue of *that* programs lifetime. That, taken together with oil subsidies over 30years (73-03), is still less than the state and federal governments take in in gas taxes alone annually.

 

Nuclear power plants can't be built without government money. The ROI is too low, the return time too long, and cost too high for banks to fund.

 

"plans" aren't law. Trump's plans included repeal and replace, the travel ban, etc....

 

Nuclear is an odd ball because it's still a state secret, but I've heard experts in the industry say that a major cause of rising costs is excessive regulations that achieve nothing, set by politicians who don't understand nuclear power but fear it. But even w/o the specific regulations which are allegedly unneccessary, the cost of nuclear would likely still be high, and what you say would probably still be the case.

The trick with nuclear is that it's clean, and can deliver power on demand w/o the need for massive storage (that wind and solar have). From what I've heard experts say, wind and solar just can't replace fossil fuels and meet current energy needs. *If* we are to go green, we have to go nuclear.

 

Yeah, it's kind of amazing that the oil industry is accused of receiving all these subsidies when apparently the total subsidies over the past 40 someodd years seems to be about 2x what the state and federal government receive in gas taxes annually, and the supposedly extra taxes on green energy - like the enhanced registration fee, which for example is $150 in Indiana, as opposed to the up to $7500 tax credit you get when buying an electric car. Yeah, we're really hammering the electric car industry. -_-

 

I don't think you need to reject the data presented in the OP. Even taken at face value, more jobs isn't inherently good. A farm run with hand tools need more workers than a farm run with machinery. Inefficiencies still aren't preferable.

 

Nuclear power can't replace fossil fuels either. For one, do the calculation on how much power that would take and then estimate how long it would take to build that many plants, even if you could find enough places to build them. It will never happen. It would take hundreds of years.

The only viable option to fossil fuels are alternative fuels, where great strides have been made using algae, bacteria, and a few other "microscopic" solutions. Were it not for the extremely low cost of petro right now, a few alternative fuels might be competitive at the pump today.

Even the production of ethanol from sources like wild grasses have made vast improvements.

 

No one is talking about banning tractors. That is just libertarian/conservative silliness. The new technologies involve collecting gases from animal and plant wastes and the use of solar and wind energy to fuel tractors and farms. Why would it not be wise for a farmer to generate his own energy rather than be dependent on a large corporations? But then isn't that what libertarianism is all about, support of their corporate masters.

 

Under existing law, those credits are already disappearing. By this time next year, Tesla buyers will lose it because they will have crossed the production threshhold.

In addition, even though you think there is no special tax on green energy, Wyoming taxes wind energy based on the megawatt hour under the pretense that the state owns the wind; I believe Oklahoma adds an additional flat tax on grid-tied solar. Ultimately where we are headed is more expensive energy either because the right wants to tax green energy out of existence or the left wants to use it to subsidize more green energy. It is what has happened in Europe--what the left conveniently ignores in the US when praising Europe's green energy is that countries like Germany pay some of the highest utility rates in Europe in exchange for all that "free energy". The production savings have been more than offset by government taxation.

 

That is why we need to develop our own natural fuel resources.

 

With Japan estimating the clean up cost for Fukashima will come close to $200B, "excessive regulations" may be a bit of a myopic way of looking at the issue.

 

lol i dont need a graph. If you honestly cant admit its not profitable and costs are offset by an obama admin HEMHORRAGING $ into the industry, YOUR the troll. Youll never convince anybody with access to facts that its anywhere NEAR oil. Get a clue, if you cant be honest, dont bother.

 

and yet the left wont build the pipeline to end dependence on foreign oil. Is it bout the environment, or is it the profitable "green" industry they back? Admit it, its a construct of the left used JUST like the right use oil....theyre jealous, want muny of their own.