Can solar powered aircraft save GA?

[wayne]

Oh that's funny. Coal and oil are "subsidized" by not being "taxed". lol In other words the IMF wants money for their crazy schemes and countries are not taxing the evil coal & oil companies to give them enough money.

Solar and other green energy companies have more tax breaks than oil or coal do. Some just because they are green. No, I'm not in the oil or coal business.

Many of the tax breaks oil & coal get are the same ones any company in any industry have, at least in the US.

 

[NHWannabe]

The IMF estimates that fossil fuels are subsidized internationally at a rate of something like $10M per minute. Here's there recent report on the subject.

If you want side by side, you'll have to assemble it yourself. The renewable subsidies are well documented.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15105.pdf

So the "subsidy" in this "paper" is that certain products aren't taxed based on their impact environmentally...
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/f...1-2012/reports/03-06-FuelsandEnergy_Brief.pdf

 

[NHWannabe]

Oh that's funny. Coal and oil are "subsidized" by not being "taxed". lol In other words the IMF wants money for their crazy schemes and countries are not taxing the evil coal & oil companies to give them enough money.

Solar and other green energy companies have more tax breaks than oil or coal do. Some just because they are green. No, I'm not in the oil or coal business.

Many of the tax breaks oil & coal get are the same ones any company in any industry have, at least in the US.

And some of the things that are counted as "tax breaks" include the HEAP subsidies which assist low income people with their heating bills.

 

[ircphoenix]

While I agree that a tax break effectively is a subsidy, blatantly making up reasons why something SHOULD be taxed more but isn't doesn't fit the true meaning of a subsidy.

Now if all industries were taxed based on amount of environmental harm, and coal was exempted from it, then yes, that absolutely counts.

 

[GRG55]

So the "subsidy" in this "paper" is that certain products aren't taxed based on their impact environmentally...
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/f...1-2012/reports/03-06-FuelsandEnergy_Brief.pdf
View attachment 45291

A very large proportion of global oil reserves and production is done by National Oil Companies. Some nations, including much of OPEC plus such stalwarts as Russia and Norway, derive significant/majority share of their national income from their national oil production. The state-owned oil companies get to keep what their national government allows them to keep for reinvestment & reserve replacement purposes.

How exactly do these studies conclude that all this production is not "taxed" enough when so many governments are already taking the lions share of it, and in many cases overdependent on those very revenues?

When we see the Europeans taxing Airbus Group SE, Dassault, et al for the full life cycle carbon emissions from their planes (some of which are used to jet around to various climate conferences), or the anti-fossil fuel cohort start advocating the windmill makers be charged the full environmental costs of mining and smelting the metals & manufacturing the petrochemical composites that go into their products, then maybe I will take them more seriously.