Why should you care?

[GE Morton]

Oh, please. Do you really imagine that people buy cars, furnaces, electric lights and appliances, fly on airplanes, etc., because they've been mesmerized by oil company lobbyists?

Really?

Australian fossil fuel subsidies hit $10.3 billion in 2020-21
https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/ ... n-2020-21/ (Etc.)

Pointing how how much lobbyists spend does not answer the question asked. Of course oil companies will spend money to protect and defend their interests. So does every other interest group. The companies are spending that money so that they can continue to meet YOUR demand for the fuel you need to maintain YOUR chosen lifestyle.

[GE Morton]

Not just oil company lobbyists. We in 'the West' are raised in a Capitalist system, and given a Capitalist education. E.g. shopping, for its own sake, is seen as an admirable and enjoyable pastime, when (in the light of environmental issues) it should be seen on a par with paedophilia, or something equally unpleasant. Capitalism as a more-or-less-global system acts to maintain itself, and grow. Profit is the aim, and consumption is the thing that delivers it.

The lobbyists come from every Capitalist corner of our commercially-controlled societies, not just from fossil fuel companies.

Oh, my.

First, there is no "capitalist system." "Capitalism" is a term of disparagement, popularized by Marx, for a free economy (a "free economy" being one in which every person may exchange his services or the products of his labor with any other willing person on any mutually agreeable terms, without interference from any third party). It is the sort of economy that naturally arises in civilized societies, and persists until some self-serving tyrant or faction secures enough power to pervert or suppress it, by forcing others to work for their benefit.

So we are all unconsciously 'programmed' to consume, from the cradle to the grave.

I suppose that is true, in a sense. All animals are "programmed" to act to preserve themselves and improve their well-being --- to satisfy their various needs and desires, to make themselves secure and comfortable. That drive is not instilled by "capitalism;" it is animal nature, and is universal.

[Pattern-chaser]

We in 'the West' are raised in a Capitalist system, and given a Capitalist education. E.g. shopping, for its own sake, is seen as an admirable and enjoyable pastime, when (in the light of environmental issues) it should be seen on a par with paedophilia, or something equally unpleasant. Capitalism as a more-or-less-global system acts to maintain itself, and grow. Profit is the aim, and consumption is the thing that delivers it.

First, there is no "capitalist system."

Wikipedia thinks that "Capitalism" is an "economic system":

Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.

"Capitalism" is a term of disparagement, popularized by Marx, for a free economy...

Not when I use it, it's not. I use the term according to the Wikipedia 'definition', above.

[Sy Borg]

Oh, please. Do you really imagine that people buy cars, furnaces, electric lights and appliances, fly on airplanes, etc., because they've been mesmerized by oil company lobbyists?

Really?

Australian fossil fuel subsidies hit $10.3 billion in 2020-21
https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/ ... n-2020-21/ (Etc.)

Pointing how how much lobbyists spend does not answer the question asked. Of course oil companies will spend money to protect and defend their interests. So does every other interest group. The companies are spending that money so that they can continue to meet YOUR demand for the fuel you need to maintain YOUR chosen lifestyle.

Fossil fuel companies used the power they have built historically to change policy to stymie sustainable energy competitors. Thus, the masses are given little choice but to use fossil fuel companies' products. That use is not an endorsement of fossil fuels. Your attitude is akin to blaming POWs for not being in good physical condition.

[GE Morton]

Fossil fuel companies used the power they have built historically to change policy to stymie sustainable energy competitors.

Actually, little, if any, fossil fuel lobbying is directed to "stymieing" competitive technologies, except for opposing (in some cases) subsidies to their competitors; it is directed to opposing restrictions on their own technologies. I know of no case where energy companies have lobbied for limits or restrictions on competitive technologies. Can you cite any examples of these stymieing efforts?

Thus, the masses are given little choice but to use fossil fuel companies' products.

They have little choice, but not because energy companies are restricting their choices. It is because there are no alternative technologies which (so far) can compete with fossil fuel in terms of abundance, versatility, reliability, and price. That may change in the future, but for now, for most people, fossil fuels are the only practical option.

[GE Morton]

First, there is no "capitalist system."

Wikipedia thinks that "Capitalism" is an "economic system":

Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.

Yes, that was a gloss on my part. It is a system in the broad sense of that word:

"1. a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole
a.1. a group of interacting bodies under the influence of related forces"

It is not a system in this sense:

"1.d. a group of devices or artificial objects or an organization forming a network especially for distributing something or serving a common purpose.
f. a form of social, economic, or political organization or practice"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/system

Most particularly, it is not a system intentionally constructed in accordance with any preconceived plan or design, as is feudalism, socialism, mercantilism, or fascism. Free markets arise naturally and spontaneously in human societies, and persist until forcibly suppressed by one of the contrived, synthetic economic "--isms."

[Sy Borg]

Fossil fuel companies used the power they have built historically to change policy to stymie sustainable energy competitors.

Actually, little, if any, fossil fuel lobbying is directed to "stymieing" competitive technologies, except for opposing (in some cases) subsidies to their competitors; it is directed to opposing restrictions on their own technologies. I know of no case where energy companies have lobbied for limits or restrictions on competitive technologies. Can you cite any examples of these stymieing efforts?

Thus, the masses are given little choice but to use fossil fuel companies' products.

They have little choice, but not because energy companies are restricting their choices. It is because there are no alternative technologies which (so far) can compete with fossil fuel in terms of abundance, versatility, reliability, and price. That may change in the future, but for now, for most people, fossil fuels are the only practical option.

You make clear that you don't know what you're talking about.

Fossil fuel companies have used any and every means to, as you would put it, "achieve dividends for their shareholders" - including stymying the development of sustainable technologies and the infrastructure needed for their use, spreading lies about the limitations of renewable energy, and lobbying for billions in taxpayer subsidies.

How the oil industry made us doubt climate change
https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-53640382

At the time Exxon was spending millions of dollars on ground-breaking research. It wanted to lead the charge as scientists grappled with the emerging understanding that the warming planet could cause the climate to change in ways that could make life pretty difficult for humans.

Hoffert shared his predictions with his managers, showing them what might happen if we continued burning fossil fuels in our cars, trucks and planes.

But he noticed a clash between Exxon's own findings, and public statements made by company bosses, such as the then chief executive Lee Raymond, who said that "currently, the scientific evidence is inconclusive as to whether human activities are having a significant effect on the global climate".

"They were saying things that were contradicting their own world-class research groups," said Hoffert.

Angry, he left Exxon, and went on to become a leading academic in the field.

"What they did was immoral. They spread doubt about the dangers of climate change when their own researchers were confirming how serious a threat it was."

[Pattern-chaser]

How the oil industry made us doubt climate change
https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-53640382

At the time Exxon was spending millions of dollars on ground-breaking research. It wanted to lead the charge as scientists grappled with the emerging understanding that the warming planet could cause the climate to change in ways that could make life pretty difficult for humans.

Hoffert shared his predictions with his managers, showing them what might happen if we continued burning fossil fuels in our cars, trucks and planes.

But he noticed a clash between Exxon's own findings, and public statements made by company bosses, such as the then chief executive Lee Raymond, who said that "currently, the scientific evidence is inconclusive as to whether human activities are having a significant effect on the global climate".

"They were saying things that were contradicting their own world-class research groups," said Hoffert.

Angry, he left Exxon, and went on to become a leading academic in the field.

"What they did was immoral. They spread doubt about the dangers of climate change when their own researchers were confirming how serious a threat it was."

Just like the tobacco companies did. The parallel is often mentioned in the media these days. They lie for their own financial benefit, and that of their shareholders.

[GE Morton]

Fossil fuel companies have used any and every means to, as you would put it, "achieve dividends for their shareholders" - including stymying the development of sustainable technologies and the infrastructure needed for their use . . .

I asked you for examples of this "stymieing." Where are they?

. . . spreading lies about the limitations of renewable energy . . .

Examples? The piece you quoted reported that an Exxon exec said, " . . . currently, the scientific evidence is inconclusive as to whether human activities are having a significant effect on the global climate".

That says nothing about any limitations on renewable energy, false or otherwise.

. . . and lobbying for billions in taxpayer subsidies.

In the US tax breaks available to the oil and gas industry cost the government ~ $3 billion/year. Direct subsidies are negligible. I know of no lobbying by oil companies for any new subsidies, although they do lobby to retain the tax deductions they already have (which are not much different from deductions allowed to all other businesses.

https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/resear ... roduction/

Do you have any examples of this lobbying for subsidies?

[Sy Borg]

GE, the info you demand is so easy to find that I can only guess that you either lack research skills or you are playing manipulative games, trying to work me into submission.

However, your misrepresentation of the US's fossil fuel support spending is noted. As a matter of interest, Australia spends $10.3b on direct fossil fuel subsidies, not including systemic assistance. Consider the way the table is tilted towards fossil fuels in the US:

Direct Subsidies

Intangible Drilling Costs Deduction (26 U.S. Code § 263. Active).
This provision allows companies to deduct a majority of the costs incurred from drilling new wells domestically. In its analysis of President Trump’s Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Proposal, the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated that eliminating tax breaks for intangible drilling costs would generate $1.59 billion in revenue in 2017, or $13 billion in the next ten years.

Percentage Depletion (26 U.S. Code § 613. Active).
Depletion is an accounting method that works much like depreciation, allowing businesses to deduct a certain amount from their taxable income as a reflection of declining production from a reserve over time. However, with standard cost depletion, if a firm were to extract 10 percent of recoverable oil from a property, the depletion expense would be ten percent of capital costs. In contrast, percentage depletion allows firms to deduct a set percentage from their taxable income. Because percentage depletion is not based on capital costs, total deductions can exceed capital costs. This provision is limited to independent producers and royalty owners. In its analysis of the President’s Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Proposal, the JCT estimated that eliminating percentage depletion for coal, oil and natural gas would generate $12.9 billion in the next ten years.

Credit for Clean Coal Investment Internal Revenue Code § 48A (Active) and 48B (Inactive).
These subsidies create a series of tax credits for energy investments, particularly for coal. In 2005, Congress authorized $1.5 billion in credits for integrated gasification combined cycle properties, with $800 million of this amount reserved specifically for coal projects. In 2008, additional incentives for carbon sequestration were added to IRC § 48B and 48A. These included 30 percent investment credits, which were made available for gasification projects that sequester 75 percent of carbon emissions, as well as advanced coal projects that sequester 65 percent of carbon emissions. Eliminating credits for investment in these projects would save $1 billion between 2017 and 2026.

Nonconventional Fuels Tax Credit (Internal Revenue Code § 45. Inactive). Sunsetted in 2014, this tax credit was created by the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980 to promote domestic energy production and reduce dependence on foreign oil. Although amendments to the act limited the list of qualifying fuel sources, this credit provided $12.2 billion to the coal industry from 2002-2010.

Indirect Subsidies

Last In, First Out Accounting (26 U.S. Code § 472. Active).
The Last In, First Out accounting method (LIFO) allows oil and gas companies to sell the fuel most recently added to their reserves first, as opposed to selling older reserves first under the traditional First In, First Out (FIFO) method. This allows the most expensive reserves to be sold first, reducing the value of their inventory for taxation purposes.

Foreign Tax Credit (26 U.S. Code § 901. Active).
Typically, when firms operating in foreign countries pay royalties abroad they can deduct these expenses from their taxable income. Instead of claiming royalty payments as deductions, oil and gas companies are able to treat them as fully deductible foreign income tax. In 2016, the JCT estimated that closing this loophole for all American businesses operating in countries that do not tax corporate income would generate $12.7 billion in tax revenue over the course of the following decade.

Master Limited Partnerships (Internal Revenue Code § 7704. Indirect. Active).
Many oil and gas companies are structured as Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs). This structure combines the investment advantages of publicly traded corporations with the tax benefits of partnerships. While shareholders still pay personal income tax, the MLP itself is exempt from corporate income taxes. More than three-quarters of MLPs are fossil fuel companies. This provision is not available to renewable energy companies.

Domestic Manufacturing Deduction (IRC §199. Indirect. Inactive).
Put in place in 2004, this subsidy supported a range of companies by decreasing their effective corporate tax rate. While this deduction was available to domestic manufacturers, it nevertheless benefitted fossil fuel companies by allowing “oil producers to claim a tax break intended for U.S. manufacturers to prevent job outsourcing”. The Office of Management and Budget estimated that repealing this deduction for coal and other hard mineral fossil fuels would have saved $173 million between 2012 and 2016. This subsidy was repealed by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (P.L. 115 – 97) starting fiscal year 2018.

[GE Morton]

GE, the info you demand is so easy to find that I can only guess that you either lack research skills or you are playing manipulative games, trying to work me into submission.

Er, Sy, I did the research. The deductions you cite are taken from the link I gave you.

And you ignore the point. Those deductions, or similar ones, are available to virtually all businesses:

* Intangible Drilling Costs Deduction (26 U.S. Code § 263. Active).

All businesses can deduct their costs, tangible or intangible. Income taxes in the US are levied on profits, not gross revenue.

* Percentage Depletion (26 U.S. Code § 613. Active)

The depletion allowance is analogous to the depreciation allowance available to all businesses for depreciable capital assets.

* Credit for Clean Coal Investment (Internal Revenue Code § 48A (Active) and 48B (Inactive)).

That one is a credit for investments made to make coal and other fuels cleaner. You oppose that?

* Nonconventional Fuels Tax Credit (Internal Revenue Code § 45. Inactive).

That one is no longer in place.

* Last In, First Out Accounting (26 U.S. Code § 472. Active).

That accounting method is available to all businesses.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lifo.asp

* Foreign Tax Credit (26 U.S. Code § 901. Active).
Typically, when firms operating in foreign countries pay royalties abroad they can deduct these expenses from their taxable income. Instead of claiming royalty payments as deductions, oil and gas companies are able to treat them as fully deductible foreign income tax. In 2016, the JCT estimated that closing this loophole for all American businesses operating in countries that do not tax corporate income would generate $12.7 billion in tax revenue over the course of the following decade.

Again, that credit is available to all businesses, and the "savings" cited are for all businesses.

* Master Limited Partnerships (Internal Revenue Code § 7704. Indirect. Active).

That tax classification is only available for "natural resource and real estate sectors."

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mlp.asp

MLPs do not pay corporate taxes, but profits distributed to investors are fully taxable as personal income.

* Domestic Manufacturing Deduction (IRC §199. Indirect. Inactive).

Another one no longer in place. While it was in effect it applied to all businesses, not just the oil and gas industry.

However, your misrepresentation of the US's fossil fuel support spending is noted.

Your misunderstanding of that "support" is noted, Sy.

As a matter of interest, Australia spends $10.3b on direct fossil fuel subsidies, not including systemic assistance.

I haven't researched the situation in Oz, but would suggest you dig a little deeper into it. I wouldn't be surprised if those "subsidies" turned out not be subsidies at all, but generally applicable provisions of Australia's tax structure.

Describing tax deductions generally available to all businesses as "subsidies" to the oil and gas industry is demagoguery.

[GE Morton]

GE, the info you demand is so easy to find that I can only guess that you either lack research skills or you are playing manipulative games, trying to work me into submission.

PS: Where are the examples of the "stymieing" and "lying about the limitations of renewables" and "lobbying for more subsidies" you earlier asserted?

[Sy Borg]

GE, the info you demand is so easy to find that I can only guess that you either lack research skills or you are playing manipulative games, trying to work me into submission.

PS: Where are the examples of the "stymieing" and "lying about the limitations of renewables" and "lobbying for more subsidies" you earlier asserted?

I have already provided examples and I don't need to follow your commands when they are unreasonable. If you have any competence as a researcher (checking only Fox and Breitbart does not count), then you can find the information in minutes.

However, since you appear incapable of researching for yourself, I will provide some simple clues:

Clue #1: The oil industry's relationship with electric cars.

Clue #2: oil industry spreading climate change misinformation.

Let's see what you can find.

[GE Morton]

GE, the info you demand is so easy to find that I can only guess that you either lack research skills or you are playing manipulative games, trying to work me into submission.

PS: Where are the examples of the "stymieing" and "lying about the limitations of renewables" and "lobbying for more subsidies" you earlier asserted?

I have already provided examples and I don't need to follow your commands when they are unreasonable.

Well, no, you haven't. The only examples you've provided were from my own link, which discussed tax deductions generally available to all businesses. None of them had anything to do with "stymieing development of renewables," "lying about the limitations of renewables," or "lobbying for subsidies."

If you have any competence as a researcher (checking only Fox and Breitbart does not count), then you can find the information in minutes.

You know better than that, Sy. Substantiating your claims is your responsibility. Demanding that challengers search for evidence supporting them is an evasion of that responsibility.

[Sy Borg]

I should not need to substantiate claims that are so easy to find. If this was a contestable issue, sure, but there's no point in debating matters of public record on philosophy forums. Try again:

Clue #1: The oil industry's relationship with electric cars.

Clue #2: oil industry spreading climate change misinformation.