Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould the government stop providing subsidies to all energy sources, eg, coal, oil, solar and wind?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Yes | 43% | 51 votes | Total: 118 votes | |
| No | 57% | 67 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesMost of the problems related to energy is due to the micromanagement of energy sources by the state. This has existed in countries such as Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and the USA. For those who say the USA is a capitalist society in which the rich gouge the poor, the reality is that the USA is an oligarchy ruled by the Republicans and Democrats who provide subsidy to energy sources such as coal, oil, solar, wind, and even fecal matter.
At a time when petroleum was at its peak usage after World War II, Washington did everything it could in order to prevent even the mere mention of alternative fuels by providing subsidies to the oil companies. During the First Energy Crisis of the 1970's, Washington provided some subsidies to farmers to use corn and alcohol for a new fuel concept called Gasohol. [The Concept of Gasohol was new to the USA but was used in Cuba during the 1940's, and Brazil and South Africa during the 1970's].
After the waning of the Energy Crisis, [instead of working on alternative fuels or even allowing the market to develop these fuels] Washington gave heavy subsidies to the Oil Companies. This removed any initiative from the Private Sector to even think of innovations which would have resolved the problems of energy.
In spite of the attempts of the state to subsidize energy, there are farmers and chemists in the rural areas of the USA who have formed their own energy sources with vegetable oil, fecal matter, and alcohol without the State interfering. Fuel Prices could decrease if there was an abundance of energy supplies and an end to the subsidies that suffocates any attempts at resolving this pressing issue.
In closing, if Edison, Firestone, and Ford were alive today; Washington would have subjected them to heavy fines and prison sentences for the crime of taking the initiative.
Learn more about this author, Roberto Alvarez-Galloso.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Government subsidies to energy sources in the U.S. has long been over influenced or outright controlled by business and led to or maintained monopolies. With this in consideration one should, and the public should be highly skeptical of subsidies, especially the profit and political motivation behind them.
The larger question involved in this debate title could be, "Do we trust a free market for our energy needs, to be a responsible power for environmental and social justice." The history of the energy industry, and subsidies in our country would suggest that it is not; however, the political powers that have long advocated the end of subsidies have done little to actually end them but benefited from the subsidies and funneled these funds into the sort of politics that spread and benefit from public ferment against their very own bankroll.
We have a broken system, which may or not be better than no system, yet we should have a system. A public polarization exists, which pits supposed "free marketeers" Vs. supposed "socialists." The supposed public representation does little to recognize this "false debate" yet gives us another "false debate" which is merely the old on-going pulling of puppet strings representing profits and political power and not the populous.
We should recognize this, recognize that ignorance and apathy, encouraged by these powers is and has been the weapon of mass destruction that has lead to our current energy and climate crisis. When the people realize this, realize that some publicly monitored subsidies will help to discourage unigenerational thinking and practices, as far as needs concerning the environment and national security. Sustainability equals peace and profit, and a good energy plan will allow a competitive market be being an appropriate check to the market, to discourage artificially high prices, and to encourage pro environment practices.
Learn more about this author, Skye Martin.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Energy Issues
- Should hardrock mining companies pay the US government a royalty on minerals extracted from federally owned lands, the way oil, natural gas and coal companies do?
- Does protecting the environment have to come at the expense of jobs?
- Assuming we can capture and store emissions, should we continue to rely on coal as a primary energy source?
- Is conservation or increased domestic production the key to reducing foreign oil dependence?
- Should Congress ban auto racing?
- Can interstate highways be converted to electric power grids serving electric cars?
