Jack Gerard
Jane Van Ryan
As President Obama prepares to meet with leaders of the G-20 nations tomorrow, he should be commended for noting that climate change is a challenge for both developed and developing nations.
But his call to "phase out fossil fuel subsidies" is the wrong approach that should be seen for what it really is: a giant tax hike on American consumers.
By raising energy taxes under the veil of eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, oil and natural gas companies would be deprived of the capital they need to invest in exploration and development. That would likely kill jobs, restrict the energy supply and increase costs to consumers and businesses.
Advocates of this strategy make the ludicrous claim that so-called subsidies lead to the overproduction of oil and natural gas. And their policy prescriptions would cut or end programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. These are ill-conceived ideas that would leave our most vulnerable citizens without heat in the winter, undermine the nation's energy security and tighten oil and natural gas supplies at a time when the nation needs energy from all sources to fuel a recovery.
According to the recent Pricewaterhouse Coopers study, the oil and natural gas industry supports 9.2 million jobs and in 2007 contributed 7.5 percent to the gross domestic product. It simply makes no sense to raise taxes at a time when America needs energy from all sources to fuel a recovery.
Dear Jack Gerard,
Do I understand you right?
You want zero incentives for the new technologies while keeping the subsidies for the old technologies!
If a new technology gets incentives you would call it "unfair advantage" - let the new technology compete "fairly" without help. Do you take care of your own children in the same way? Let them work for 100% of their food while they are babies and grow up - by feeding them you give them unfair advantage in the competition with the adults.
At the same time the subsidies that the old technologies receive silently are fair and taking them off is "a giant tax hike on American consumers". Is this your understanding of capitalism and competition? You do not like even a level playground. You want it tilted in you favor (or in favor of the people who pay you).
Second: How do you chose when to be concerned about the vulnerable citizens?
Third: Congratulations! You are a strong competitor of Rush Limbaugh in self confident, arrogant, and irresponsible use of words.