Why your taxes pay to make climate change worse: Don Pittis

Subsidizing green energy = socialist tampering with the market. Subsidizing fossil fuels = wise investment.

Never mind climate change, why subsidize an industry that makes billions every year in profit. Anybody from Alberta want to answer that one?

We've been asking that for decades. We still don't get an answer.

We've been asking that for decades. We still don't get an answer.

I still haven't heard a good reason why Norway can get so much revenue out of their oil, with the oil companies happy to play along, while Alberta sets such a low royalty rate and the Feds (Alberta too?) subsidize the industry to boot, all in fear the job givers will just walk away from the oilsands.

We've been asking that for decades. We still don't get an answer.

I still haven't heard a good reason why Norway can get so much revenue out of their oil, with the oil companies happy to play along, while Alberta sets such a low royalty rate and the Feds (Alberta too?) subsidize the industry to boot, all in fear the job givers will just walk away from the oilsands.

I haven't heard a good reason why Alberta shouldn't charge the same rates as Alaska for oil royalties (outside the oilsands). It's always met with the same fear that somehow companies will walk away from billion dollar profits as well.

A certain oil company has ceased operations in Northern BC due to the BC government asking for more money than previously agreed upon.

I'm betting on the government to fold before the oil company.

So not just those commie Norskies, but good ole capitalist 'Mericuns are charging more for their oil.

I think it comes back to us just seeing ourselves as hewers of wood, drawers of water. We did the same with our coastal old growth forests, treating them as a mine, rather than a farm and letting the wood go cheap for a quick buck now, rather than looking to the future. A friend of mine was a log broker, said he could sell a log to the US for $500, while MacBlo turned that same log into $200 worth of lumber.

As it should. Agreements are agreements, and you can't make a financial plan unless you know the upfront costs. If the deal changes after you make the plan, it makes sense to walk away if it's no longer viable.

Back to climate change - Now that the US and China have agreed to cut back emissions, Steveo has lost his excuse why we can't. Even accounting for bullshit, maybe this agreement will be the start of taking climate change seriously.

That said, personally I doubt we can do enough fast enough to really make a diff. We still have new consumers coming onstream every day, and plenty of current consumers looking to upgrade their lifestyles. I just think that pressure will be irresistible for making the serious cuts required.

The guy in the editorial is speaking in broad generalities.

Basically though he seems to be outlining 3 ways oil is subsidized.

1. A communist country like Venezuela, or a Theocracy like Iran seems to be selling oil cheap to its citizens. Climate change guy doesn't like that. Also, he wants Egypt to go solar. Good for him. Lots of luck there. Hope it works out for you guy. I don't know what he wants to do about the communists and the theocracies, but good luck to him there too.

2. There are subsidies for Research and Development in the oil industry.

There are. As I heard it they go to small independent companies more than the large oil corporations. Cancelling those would hurt some small companies, but the subsidies aren't that much relative to the billions climate change guy is talking about. It wouldn't be any big sweat.

3. Tax breaks.

As I heard it almost all of these are not exclusively for oil companies, but oil companies have found a way to exploit them. Killing them would affect a lot of companies and people, not just oil companies.

So yeah, subsidies suck. What specifically do you want to do about them.

We've been asking that for decades. We still don't get an answer.

In fairness, expecting the same royalty rate from heavy oil and conventional oil doesn't make sense, as they are two different products - and given that heavy oil needs a lot more refining than most conventional oil does.

But we did get an answer in 2008/09 when Steady Eddie tried to increase the royalty rates - the answer is they don't like paying an even slightly higher rate and started funding the Wildrose to pressure the PCs to keep them low.

Worked like a charm...

Not a good reason tho - pols willing to sell out your province. And quite frankly y'all seem really addicted to living it up now, rather than thinking of the future. Compare that to the Norwegians.

Of course heavy oil can't be compared to light. But what about the access - ie Norway's oil is underwater, surely that adds expense to extract. Basically the comparison should be based on the refined product - ie what does it cost to produce one barrel of similar crude. I would guess Alberta's royalties are still low compared to Norway's. Of course those commies insisted on going partners with the oil companies, ie actually profiting from the sale of oil, not just royalties. What a disaster that's going to be - we know govt involvement in private industry just doesn't work.

We've been asking that for decades. We still don't get an answer.

I still haven't heard a good reason why Norway can get so much revenue out of their oil, with the oil companies happy to play along, while Alberta sets such a low royalty rate and the Feds (Alberta too?) subsidize the industry to boot, all in fear the job givers will just walk away from the oilsands.
Norway's oil industry is pretty much nationalized with Statoil operating in some 55 oil fields and satellite sites.
I mean c'mon andy, do you want a Conservative govt having 50% or more of the controlling interest in Canadian oil production?

Actually didn't the shiny pony's dad try that one?

As I recall nationalizing energy doesn't work so well when the price of oil goes down too much.