Even If We Counted Tax Deductions As Subsidies, Wind Gets 12 Times More Than Oil

wind-turbine-2

I don’t really like the comparison CNBC is making here because “tax preferences” (basically tax deductions that allow the oil industry to keep more of their own revenues) is not the same thing as subsidies, which is the government just giving money to the wind industry.

But if we did stipulate to the left’s insistence that tax deductions are subsidies, it’s worth noting that wind gets 12 times more than oil (via Bruce Oksol):

…the tax preferences for wind energy total $1,540 per barrel of oil equivalent per day.

At $1,540 per barrel of oil equivalent per day, the wind sector is getting subsidies that are about 12 times as great as the amount of tax preferences provided to the oil and gas sector.

Here are the numbers: In 2011, domestic oil and gas production totaled 19.736 million barrels of oil equivalent per day. Last year, according to the CBO, the tax preferences extended to the fossil-fuel sector totaled $2.5 billion.Therefore, a bit of simple math shows that the tax preferences for the oil and gas sector cost taxpayers about $127 per barrel of oil equivalent per day.

Again, I don’t agree that tax deductions “cost” the taxpayers anything. That presumes that the oil industry’s revenues belong to the public, and that when we let the industry keep more of that money it’s “costing” the public something.

That’s not how it works. Lighter tax burdens are not the same as subsidies. That being said, wind gets far more in government assistance even if we count lower tax burdens as subsidies.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • Robert Portly

    How silly can you be? Why does oil get any subsidy should be the question. Why should you subsidize something that causes global warming? Look at the salaries of oil CEO’s. Look at the profits of oil companies, and ask why would we give them a nickel? It is just like giving tax breaks to the rich, pure simple greedy right wing insanity. Now, if you asked the greed dogs to subsidize health care for their fellow Americans, The Moochers, as Mitt calls them, the greed dogs go nuts and say ” No we need more car elevators”. You unconscionable scum, bitching about people who want to improve the air while you polish the boots of jerks like the Koch brothers, Satan Limbaugh, and the rest. You don’t have an once of morality, but a ton of greed.

    • robert108

      Oil doesn’t get any subsidies; look up the definition of “subsidy” in a real dictionary.

    • Big Burt

      Because Global Warming is a fraud – where have you been? There is no such thing as man-made-global warming –

    • Uh, What?

      Tell me exactly what “we” are “giving” to the Oil Companies? Are we advocating letting them keep the profits from THEIR labor/investment/private property? What a novel concept?! (sarcasm)

      Until we kill the mis-guided idea that tax reduction is a “cost” to govt/taxpayers we’ll never be able to have a real conversation about subsidies/taxation.

    • sue

      You must suffer from sort of brain damage. Geeeze Joel!
      SUBSIDY:
      a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public
      TAX:
      to levy a tax on
      DEDUCTION:
      something that is or may be subtracted
      GLOBAL WARMING:

      TEN MYTHS of Global Warming MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8Cover the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas (“heat islands”), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas (“land use effects”). There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.
      MYTH 2: The “hockey stick” graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the “average global temperature” has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare. The “hockey stick”, a poster boy of both the UN’s IPCC and Canada’s Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that. MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth’s oceans expel more CO2 as a result. MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas. FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as “greenhouse agents” than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the “Greenhouse effect”. Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.
      MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.FACT: Computer models can be made to “verify” anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not “prove” anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.
      MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming. FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
      1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
      2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

      MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.

      MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.

      MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier’s health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.
      MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica. Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise. Source: Friends of Science website.
      Copyright & copy; 2007, Peter C Glover. All rights reserved.
      MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8Cover the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas (“heat islands”), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas (“land use effects”). There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.
      MYTH 2: The “hockey stick” graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the “average global temperature” has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare. The “hockey stick”, a poster boy of both the UN’s IPCC and Canada’s Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that. MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth’s oceans expel more CO2 as a result. MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas. FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as “greenhouse agents” than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the “Greenhouse effect”. Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.
      MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.FACT: Computer models can be made to “verify” anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not “prove” anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.
      MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming. FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
      1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
      2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

      MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.

      MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.

      MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier’s health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.
      MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica. Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise. Source: Friends of Science website.
      Copyright & copy; 2007, Peter C Glover. All rights reserved.

      • $8194357

        (You must suffer from sort of brain damage. Geeeze Joel! )
        It is called:
        socialist liberalism…
        Turns deadly facist and unfortunatly terminal to the Lenins useful idiot carriers.

    • jl

      I see Emily is still posting as “Robert Portly”.

  • SigFan

    So the easy way to rectify this is to allow the wind driven energy producers to take the same capital investment and business write-offs that the oil companies can take, all of which are completely legal by the tax code and are nothing that other industries can’t or don’t do (though oil companies actually get these at a lower rate or percentage). Stop all direct subsidies to the enviro-nut favored industries and companies. Within one year the wind business will be out of business and we’ll still be using the best and most efficient forms of energy available (discounting nuclear which would be a real game-changer).

    • robert108

      Unfortunately, nuclear fuel is completely controlled by govt, which is how it should be. Not everything should be marketed freely. Imagine what would happen if the Occupy nuts could buy nuclear material on the free market.

      • SigFan

        I don’t have problem with govt controlling nuclear fuel and energy. As you say, having the material fall into the wrong hands would be disastrous. But nuclear power generation on a wide scale would be the most economical, cleanest and environmentally friendly thing we could do with today’s available technology.

  • robert108

    The other part of the cost/benefit calculation is that oil produces massive benefits, including paying a lot of taxes, while wind and solar consume tax money and produce very expensive energy, even with the subsidies.

    • Robert Portly

      Like the typical dinger you forget about the environmental cost of fossil fuels. Apparently you have never heard about pollution, or global warming. You are part of the crowd that believes in creationism and distructionism

      • sue

        You are the typical “DINGY” here. I gave you proper definitions and now your argument is altered. We heard the MYTH around global warming. Now tossing in beliefs that were not stated. Honestly….

        • Robert Portly

          Yup global warming is a Muslim invention, and the Earth is only six thousand years old. Sell it to the dingers, no rational person will buy that goofy fundy stuff

          • jl

            No, it’s not a Muslim invention- they stopped inventing with the suicide vest. And if your “proof” of global warming is calling others “creationists” (proof, please?), then you’re a bigger idiot than we thought.

  • Harold

    Farmers and ranchers who produce our food we all eat, could in theory do without wind turbine electricity, but if anyone believes that they could do without the oil industry I would ask you to reconsider those thoughts. I like the food they produce for us and how they produce it, liberals and democrats for the most part never think of those consequences if oil is a thing of the past as they all seem to want. Obama wants to lower the inheritance tax’s to anyone earning a million dollars per year. Say good bye to all our mom and pop ranch’s and farms if he gets his way on that.

  • 11B40

    Greetings:

    You’re right, but the “windies” throw in the UGLY for free. So, there’s that.

    • WOOF

      Wind turbines don’t need the worlds largest navy for protection

      • jl

        But maybe the birds they kill do.

      • Fred Chittenden

        Oil and gas produced in the US (and neighbors) doesn’t need a navy — just a predictably safe way to get to market, like pipelines. :)

  • Pennst8r91

    It’s all a crock to reward Obama Backers under the guise of Global Warming (real or perceived) Re: Solyndra Bankruptcy… “So Solyndra’s owners are asking the court to liquidate the
    rest of the business and contribute a net $6.7 million to pay off
    creditors for pennies on the dollar. A holding corporation will then
    emerge from Chapter 11 that won’t make products or employ workers, but
    it will get the Solyndra tax offsets.

    The dummy company is owned by Argonaut Ventures I LLC, Solyndra’s
    largest shareholder and the primary investment arm of the George Kaiser
    Family Foundation. Mr. Kaiser is a Tulsa oil billionaire who bundled campaign checks for Mr. Obama in 2008. The other owner is Madrone Partners LP, a California venture outfit.”

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2012/10/22/overnight-outrage-solyndras-300-plus-million-bankruptcy-gift-obama-bundl#ixzz2A8qpRbId

  • james23912

    the only difference between a tax deduction and a subsidy is that one is on the front end and the other on the back..What difference does it make if I get to lower my tax bill by $2500 due to the mortgage interest deduction, or having the government pay $2500 towards my mortgage? The main diff I see is that some people fear subsidies going to poor people, while they want lower taxes for higher incomes and businesses.

Top