In the continuing “fight” over the automatic billions in federal subsidies granted to fossil fuel companies each year, versus the begging and pleading for similar subsidies that the renewables industry is forced to go through year after year, the Republicans have come up with a nifty pretend argument: “The government shouldn’t be in the business of picking winners and losers!”
Of course, government has always done exactly that, and continues to do so each and every year by rewarding fossil fuel company “winners” with federal subsidies, despite record profits for many of them year after year. And, naturally, Republicans continue to support the government helping out those “winners”.
But in a recent discussion in comments around this topic, BRAD BLOG commenter “Sven O” made a very good point over the weekend. It’s worth highlighting here for those who weren’t following the full thread:
Yup. So do you Rightwingers (and self-proclaimed libertarians) who think you believe in “free markets” really want such a market? I don’t think you really do. But let us know…
Related: The issue in more general terms
http://preview.tinyurl.com/d3bbt2m
I remember back in the 80s when the oil market tanked and states like Louisiana, Texas, and Oklahoma had a very rough time of it because much of their states financial abilities were based upon the oil industry. During that time we were concerned that if we did not do something to help the oil industry we would become more dependent upon foreign oil sources. As a result a bunch of subsidies were put into place to ensure that drilling for oil within the 50 states (and offshore within US territory) was profitable enough to keep oil production viable. That was then. As Brad has reminded us, the oil companies no longer need such subsidies, the oil companies are no longer on the ropes, oil production is profitable again (albeit with $4/gallon gas as opposed to $1/gallon back in the 80s). We should demand that oil subsidies be over, if for no other reason than that our country can not afford these financial gifts and the oil companies definitely do not need it as they did in the 80s.
“All nuclear power plants would shut down immediately if their operators were required to have appropriate insurance coverage.”
In a free market, insurance would not be required by the government.
And yes, I oppose subsidies.
Obama just wants the UN to install solar panels to power FEMA camps to jail gun rights advocates to brainwash them into socialists who will steal job creators’ money to fund health care for illegals and force white women to have abortions so democrats can steal elections thru massive voter fraud so our ambassadors can all get killed because he was born in Kenya and everybody knows that. Geez. Libtards.
ColinJames FTW! 🙂
Parke Bostrom said @ 3:
In a free market, the government wouldn’t need to require insurance. Nobody would ever be able to, or would want to, build any plant, much less a nuclear power plant, without it.
Thanks for the article.
Libertarians have been making this exact point since 1971 when the movement coalesced. Don’;t confuse Libertarianism with conservatism.
For more info on what Libertarians and friends are actually doing worldwide on this and similar issues please see http://www.libertarianinternational.org the non-partisan Libertarian International Organization.
Happening right now in Georgia, with your tax dollars:
Georgia Nuclear Reactor Becoming a Boondoggle Poster Child
Upshot: taxpayers get soaked backing loans for the nuclear industry’s newest reactor, which is waaay over budget, but the plant’s owners get a tidy profit: “Because the monopoly is guaranteed a profit on every dollar it spends…it has a disincentive to control costs.” (emphasis added)
Oh, and nuclear subsidies far outpace any taxpayer support for renewables in the US.
@Brad:
While I generally agree that subsidies keep dead businesses in a state of death undying, in the case of nuclear what it has done is prevented the nuclear industry from moving away from the old modified-A-bomb model reactors like the AP1000 and the ancient, comically mismanaged rod reactors so common in the news today.
Toshiba’s been going small and delivering enormous cost savings by scaling to a city’s exact predicted power needs over the lifespan of the reactor instead of going for half a terawatt, and others have been building molten salt reactors. Both of these methods have produced marked drops in the cost of construction. In the case of nuclear, subsidies are merely holding innovation back, not necessarily keeping the entire industry alive.
But anyone that thinks that a state shouldn’t require insurance for heavy industry projects like power plants, chemical factories and mines is either insane or completely apathetic to what happens to his fellow man. The cost of terminal faults in these industries far exceeds both community and state capacities to clean up, and the cost of insurance requirements.