|
Post by luapnor on May 29, 2024 14:46:40 GMT -5
The EPA allows pollution, dont be stupid.
Ending tax credits will stop EVs? If that were true, then they need to be ended immediately.
End the oil and gas subsidies first yes? Hahahaha... you still believe that crap. Do you ever go in for an update to your programming so it is current?
|
|
|
Post by luapnor on May 29, 2024 14:47:54 GMT -5
That's what they do. LOL Bring back the horse and buggy. The programming runs deep on the left.
|
|
|
Post by tampaspicer on May 29, 2024 14:50:19 GMT -5
That's what they do. LOL Bring back the horse and buggy. The programming runs deep on the left. Yeap and the Right. Wish we could get rid of both sides.
|
|
|
Post by cyclist on May 29, 2024 14:56:54 GMT -5
End the oil and gas subsidies first yes? Hahahaha... you still believe that crap. Do you ever go in for an update to your programming so it is current? To lead global subsidy reforms, the United States will have to strengthen these commitments by actively dismantling its own substantial production subsidies. The Environmental and Energy Study Institute reported that direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry totaled $20 billion per year, with 80% going toward oil and gas. In addition, from 2019 to 2023, tax subsidies are expected to reduce federal revenue by around $11.5 billion. Considering that production subsidies grew 28% between 2017 and 2019, the United States will be under a lot of scrutiny from other countries wanting to see evidence of reform before making their own commitments. This is a challenging task for the United States because production subsidies are embedded in the tax code and promote fossil fuels in a variety of ways. For example, producers can deduct a fixed percentage of gross revenue instead of their actual costs as capital expenses, deduct exploration and development costs, amortize geological and geophysical expenditures, and benefit from accelerated depreciation of natural gas infrastructure. Oil and gas companies are also permitted to use the Last In, First Out (LIFO) accounting method to sell their most recent and expensive reserves first, thereby reducing the value of their inventory. Other incentives include foreign tax credits and energy production credits.The actual list of direct and indirect subsidies is far more expansive and illustrates the high level of support that fossil fuels have received for years. In the past, this was justifiable to some extent. Without any alternatives, scaling up domestic fossil fuel production was part of the United States’ aggressive push for energy security following the OPEC oil embargo in 1973. But having moved past the crisis, that line of reasoning is becoming more difficult to justify; today, continuing production subsidies is not a judicious use of public finances. Accordingly, since 2012 there have been several efforts in Congress to address tax breaks and benefits for fossil fuel production in the United States. This is necessary because key production subsidies are embedded in legislation, namely the tax code. Representatives have sponsored bills aiming to eliminate a variety of deductions that oil and gas producers could claim, remove production credits, and address other issues such as coal mining in the Powder River Basin and the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund. However, none of the bills made it past Senate, and several of them are still pending with various House or Senate committees for consideration. While President Biden is already pursuing executive orders to promote reform, he can now also push for legislative action to eliminate subsidies in the tax code. With only a slight margin in Congress, though, passing these bills will be difficult, and the Biden administration may need to get creative. One approach is to garner bipartisan support by incorporating certain aspects of subsidy reform in a larger deal, like the $2.3 trillion infrastructure package. This may require trade-offs or concessions in other areas to favor subsidy reform instead. Another option is to use the budget reconciliation process to enact legislation. Doing so would mean the bill only needs a simple majority to pass in the Senate but would restrict its scope to strictly budgetary aspects.
|
|
|
Post by mapper on May 29, 2024 15:14:34 GMT -5
Ok, with the exception of navy ships and subs, what military vehicles do not run on fossil fuels? Those vehicles are not EPA emmission compliant as well.
Including light and medium duty vehicles.
BUT I guess that's not factored in on oil leases, and fuel taxes..
So unless there is something that directly replaces fossil fuels in those applications, it does have a defense aspect as well as a security aspect.
Now, if a manufacturer produces a product, they would like to have more than 1 market for it.
Not all oil leases produce..
|
|
|
Post by cyclist on May 29, 2024 15:41:24 GMT -5
Ok, with the exception of navy ships and subs, what military vehicles do not run on fossil fuels? Those vehicles are not EPA emmission compliant as well. Including light and medium duty vehicles. BUT I guess that's not factored in on oil leases, and fuel taxes.. So unless there is something that directly replaces fossil fuels in those applications, it does have a defense aspect as well as a security aspect. Now, if a manufacturer produces a product, they would like to have more than 1 market for it. Not all oil leases produce.. There is this, but I don't how much has been accomplished...yet.
|
|
|
Post by mapper on May 29, 2024 16:13:02 GMT -5
I havent seen that, thanks for posting.
I'd like to see more research and use in alternative fuels in military, namely ground uses.
But the pesky thing is while there are good applications or partial good applications in the civilian population, the civilian epa emmissions have constraints that the military does not.
So particulate filters, egr valves, def tanks, heaters, and injectors, etc.. you know the most troublesome parts of a newer diesel engine.
|
|