Graphic Of The Day: US Federal Energy Subsidies And Support, Fiscal Year 2007
by John Laumer, Philadelphia 
on 09.12.08
Take the Lipstick Off the Renewables Subsidy Pig and it's a Different Animal.
To grasp the meaning of this bar chart, you have to know which line items are embodied in the big ticket items. For example: "Ethanol production received $3.0 billion in blender’s credits under the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit, exceeding any conventional or renewable fuel." That's a three billion dollar pig feeding from the public trough, making food more expensive for humans and real pigs! Subtract that oinker and the renewables bar would drop down to fourth place (total of $1.9 billion for non-ethanol renewable energy support).
Wind subsidies come under the Electricity category: "The estimated value of production tax credits to wind producers in FY 2007 was $666 million." So, roughly half of the 2007 subsidies for electricity went to wind. If Congress actually renews that credit, which is looking doubtful for this year, look for that wind number to become a great deal larger in FY 2009. Story and graphic via::USEIA, How much does the Federal Government spend on energy-specific subsidies and support?
Know which pig wears the most lipstick?
See that bar axis labeled "Refined Coal?" That's our oinker of the year folks. "In FY 2007, refined coal (chemically enhanced to reduce certain emissions) received about $2.4 billion." Meaning:- coal mining, and possibly coal specialty processing and distribution, companies received more in direct Federal subsidies ($2.4 billion) to reduce air pollution -- presumably through washing or blending with additives to remove metals and sulfur compounds as well as non-combustables -- than did the non-ethanol renewables category.
Reiterating: coal processing got more federal subsidies than did renewable energy (if ethanol subsidies are excluded from the renewables category).
Not that we want to see increased air emissions from coal fired electricity plants. But, why can not private utilities carry their own operating costs? Through this subsidy, the cost of pollution control for coal combustion has been outsourced to the the US taxpayer. Fine if that's actually what we want. Do taxpayers even know about it? Do they really want it?
Such a long long way to go.
More Subsidy Stories From The Archives
U.N. Study: Scrapping Fuel Subsidies Can Help Fight Global Warming
Cut Solar Subsidies? Update with Vinod Khosla
Hidden Oil Subsidies: We Need to END Them
Obama Refines His Position on Coal
Survey: Is there a Role for Coal?
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Why Do Some States Have Significantly Lower Carbon Emissions Than Others?
- Forget Going Green Because It's the Right Thing to Do—Go Green to Make Your Neighbors Jealous
- 7 Great Weekend Solar Power Projects
- Why Building Community is the Greenest Thing You Can Do
- Did You Know Saving Water = Saving Electricity?
- Lipstick Danger: Don't Let Lead Poison your Pout
6.7 billion dollars of subsidies went to non-renewable energy (coal, nuclear, gas). That's more than what went to renewables. This is total BS.
Why is oil not listed? In 2006 Oil companies received in EXCESS of $17Billion in direct subsidy. Why is this ignored? Has Treehugger been sold out?
Don't forget that the "Electricity (not fuel specific) is probably mostly coal too.
Our subsidy programs now are like the Government seeing the advance of the personal computer and paying existing companies to make advances with typewriters and copy paper.
This is a great post and the kind of thing I would love to see more of. Nobody has any clue that this stuff is going on. And our politicians, as usual, make it as difficult as possible to sort out what's really happening. It would really help environmentalists if this stuff was common knowledge--no more fighting off free market rhetoric every time you try to regulate industrial activity.
Do these figures only include direct subsidies? Do they count tax breaks?
How about making up a revised graph based on sensible categories and definitions? Maybe a pie chart showing what percentage of subsidies(including oil as suggested above) truly "green" power sources are actually getting. Please?
I feel more optimistic than happy reading this, since it's basically good but still small news.
Conservation\Efficiency should at the top or near the top of this list: it's the first step!
Don't forget non-specific subsidies, like the fact that the Federal government picks up the insurance tab for all of our nuclear plants. The Price Anderson Act says that nukes can run without insurance, it is a subsidy to the tume of billions every year. Without it nukes are even LESS financially viable.
http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/paa/paahome.htm