SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
"Help" is a political statement. Academics is a pursuit of knowledge and understanding. They contribute all the time ... when people are ready to listen.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
US Oil & Subsidies
- Thread starter hcsharp
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Save your breathe. The morons of the world will only be convinced there was a problem once everything is burned to ash. It's pathetic. You can't fix the stupidity of locked ideology.... meanwhile the world burns. Truly pathetic. They betray their families, their country and the planet... for what? A fancy loud car? It's sick.
Too bad the climate doesn't have an 'ignore' feature....
Only for those owner of business - nicknamed the HUMMER tax credit (not that- the vehicle)
- Your Model X may qualify !
I am projecting the effects of the last 18 months of the uncapped, decreasing federal tax credit, you are apparently commenting on something else.
No I don't think there are 130,000 professors in the field but that means there are some making a bit more than $100,000. My actual point is $13 billion spent on climate change research is by no means chump change. It shows that pushing climate change disaster is very lucrative.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Look up Prof salaries. Go on, I dare you.
Are you really so deluded that you think the Trumper talking point is money in their pockets !?
I'll bet a handsome sum that the $13B is the total federal involvement in Atmospheric and Earth Science research ... if not other things thrown in too.
I agree there is global warming but I don't believe it is all caused by man and don't think it will be catastrophic. As and example take a look back to the 1930's it was as hot or hotter in the US than today. So what caused the increase at that time? By the way here is the history of wildfires in the US: National Interagency Fire Center. Please note that the amount of acres burned in 1930 was about 5 times what burned in 2017. Not only were more acres burned but there where more fires in the past before the rapid increase in CO2.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
It is overwhelmingly fossil fuel combustion driven and IT WILL be catastrophic. It already is, and it is going to get much worse. Year by year, with very little respite ... perhaps just enough to keep the denialism going for a while longer.
Your opinions about AGW are about as informed as your presumption that $13B a year is spent by the federal govt on AGW researcher salaries.
Brando
Active Member
Sadly many of those fires started by people desperate for jobs - fighting fires - we had more forest then and I'm still not sure more. Sure we have less forest now than 1930s anyway. yes, complex - sadly living on a very small farm (no the sad part
) loss of bees, hummingbirds, small birds, insects - even ant populations down - how can that happen?? NO chemicals (nor fertilizers) used here for at least 18 years. scary.Here is the History of spending on Climate change per the GAO. (Key Issues: Climate Change Funding and Management) Notice on the graph that most of the amount is for science and technology. I guess it depends on what you consider research. In addition per the GAO expenditures in 2017 were $13.2 billion.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Cognitive dissonance and ignorance; the true antidote to anything even remotely resembling intelligent thought or critical thinking.....
Last edited:
Brando
Active Member
Changing the oceans for better or worse takes a long time. Not really sure how will help oceans return to lower acidity and lower temperatures - very depressing. Orcas and Salmon and Oysters/Clams and starfish are the most obvious losses here in the Puget Sound. But all sea life way down including Kelp.
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
Always amazes me to hear someone say they "believe" that the planet is warming(as if actual measurements of temperature are subject to belief or disbelief), but that it's certainly not man-made. I have much more respect for folks who feel the base measurements are a fraudulent conspiracy.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Our entire human society is currently based on emitting CO2. I think it boils down to human beings inability to fully fathom what 840,000,000 gallons of crude oil PER DAY looks like. That's a lot of CO2....just from oil alone....every day.....just in the US.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Our entire human society is currently based on emitting CO2. I think it boils down to human beings inability to fully fathom what 840,000,000 gallons of crude oil PER DAY looks like. That's a lot of CO2....just from oil alone....every day.....just in the US.
The Military Cost of Defending Global Oil Supplies
At minimum, approximately $81 billion per year is spent by the U.S. military protecting global oil supplies. This is approximately 16 percent of recent DoD base budgets. Spread out over the 19.8 million barrels of oil consumed daily in the U.S. in 2017, the implicit subsidy for all petroleum consumers is approximately $11.25 per barrel of crude oil, or $0.28 per gallon. A more extensive estimate by two highly-regarded economists suggests the costs could be greater than $30 per barrel, or over $0.70 per gallon.
At minimum, approximately $81 billion per year is spent by the U.S. military protecting global oil supplies. This is approximately 16 percent of recent DoD base budgets. Spread out over the 19.8 million barrels of oil consumed daily in the U.S. in 2017, the implicit subsidy for all petroleum consumers is approximately $11.25 per barrel of crude oil, or $0.28 per gallon. A more extensive estimate by two highly-regarded economists suggests the costs could be greater than $30 per barrel, or over $0.70 per gallon.
Pentagon moves forward with Saudi defense mission
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia —The United States is negotiating cost-sharing terms with Saudi Arabia for an expanding military mission aimed at ensuring the kingdom is protected from attacks on critical oil infrastructure, officials said.
The Pentagon’s deployment of new radar, air defense and other military assets to the Gulf nation was discussed during talks Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, held with Saudi officials this week.
Milley, in his first visit to this key U.S. ally since becoming President Trump’s chief military adviser this fall, met with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and other leaders during his visit.
Trump authorized a boost to the relatively light U.S. footprint in Saudi Arabia, from an advisory mission that stood around 800 to a force of about 3,000, following the Sept. 14 assault on Saudi oil facilities, which Saudi and U.S. officials said was launched by Iran in an major escalation of regional tensions.
The troops will operate additional assets designed to help the Saudi military guard against Iranian attacks, including four Patriot batteries, a THAAD air defense system and two squadrons of fighter jets. Financial responsibility for the deployment has taken on unusual visibility after Trump, who has criticized allies for not contributing enough to shared defense, promised the oil-rich kingdom would pay “100 percent of the cost.”
The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the two countries are negotiating “burden-sharing” arrangements but the kingdom is expected to provide financial support for some elements of the expanded U.S. military presence, including upgrades to a major air base, fuel, water and logistics.
Military officials say the deployment has a dual purpose: to fill in gaps in the Saudi Arabia’s air defense network, which in recent years has been oriented southward toward threats from Houthi rebels in Yemen rather than east or north toward Iran, and to prevent any potential Iranian action by raising the stakes.
Speaking to reporters traveling with him on a tour of Middle Eastern nations, Milley said it was important for potential adversaries to have a clear understanding that the United States was willing to employ force if required.
“So we want to maintain significant military capability within the region to reassure allies and deter Iran from aggression,” he said. “As long as Iran knows we’ll use it, I think it’ll be effective.”
The U.S. troop presence in Saudi Arabia remains a modest part of an overall regional footprint that exceeds 60,000, but officials say the new deployments reflect a worrying uptick in Iranian attacks.
The incidents also include mine attacks on Arab and European vessels. In June, Trump authorized but then called off a strike on Iranian targets after Iran shot down an American drone that it said had veered into its airspace.
Iran denied involvement in the September attack, for which Yemeni Houthi rebels linked to Tehran initially asserted responsibility.
Military officials say one important aspect of the deployment is the presence of American forces in more locations across the kingdom. They believe Iran has demonstrated its reluctance to target American personnel, either directly or indirectly, in part because Trump has made clear that would trigger a military response.
“When you internationalize … it makes it harder for the Iranians to lash out because they’re now not just lashing out at a [Gulf] country,” a senior defense official said.
The Iranian reluctance is a change from the years following the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, when U.S. officials estimate Iranian backed militias killed at least 500 American troops.
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia —The United States is negotiating cost-sharing terms with Saudi Arabia for an expanding military mission aimed at ensuring the kingdom is protected from attacks on critical oil infrastructure, officials said.
The Pentagon’s deployment of new radar, air defense and other military assets to the Gulf nation was discussed during talks Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, held with Saudi officials this week.
Milley, in his first visit to this key U.S. ally since becoming President Trump’s chief military adviser this fall, met with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and other leaders during his visit.
Trump authorized a boost to the relatively light U.S. footprint in Saudi Arabia, from an advisory mission that stood around 800 to a force of about 3,000, following the Sept. 14 assault on Saudi oil facilities, which Saudi and U.S. officials said was launched by Iran in an major escalation of regional tensions.
The troops will operate additional assets designed to help the Saudi military guard against Iranian attacks, including four Patriot batteries, a THAAD air defense system and two squadrons of fighter jets. Financial responsibility for the deployment has taken on unusual visibility after Trump, who has criticized allies for not contributing enough to shared defense, promised the oil-rich kingdom would pay “100 percent of the cost.”
The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the two countries are negotiating “burden-sharing” arrangements but the kingdom is expected to provide financial support for some elements of the expanded U.S. military presence, including upgrades to a major air base, fuel, water and logistics.
Military officials say the deployment has a dual purpose: to fill in gaps in the Saudi Arabia’s air defense network, which in recent years has been oriented southward toward threats from Houthi rebels in Yemen rather than east or north toward Iran, and to prevent any potential Iranian action by raising the stakes.
Speaking to reporters traveling with him on a tour of Middle Eastern nations, Milley said it was important for potential adversaries to have a clear understanding that the United States was willing to employ force if required.
“So we want to maintain significant military capability within the region to reassure allies and deter Iran from aggression,” he said. “As long as Iran knows we’ll use it, I think it’ll be effective.”
The U.S. troop presence in Saudi Arabia remains a modest part of an overall regional footprint that exceeds 60,000, but officials say the new deployments reflect a worrying uptick in Iranian attacks.
The incidents also include mine attacks on Arab and European vessels. In June, Trump authorized but then called off a strike on Iranian targets after Iran shot down an American drone that it said had veered into its airspace.
Iran denied involvement in the September attack, for which Yemeni Houthi rebels linked to Tehran initially asserted responsibility.
Military officials say one important aspect of the deployment is the presence of American forces in more locations across the kingdom. They believe Iran has demonstrated its reluctance to target American personnel, either directly or indirectly, in part because Trump has made clear that would trigger a military response.
“When you internationalize … it makes it harder for the Iranians to lash out because they’re now not just lashing out at a [Gulf] country,” a senior defense official said.
The Iranian reluctance is a change from the years following the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, when U.S. officials estimate Iranian backed militias killed at least 500 American troops.
Michael Mann makes $200,000 plus speaking engagements. Here are a list of the top 10 paid professors.
The 10 Highest-Paid College Professors in the U.S.
So yes a lot of professors make more than $100,000
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
A lot of athletes make $30,000,000 a year
You have identified some $2 million a year.
Now find the other $12,998,000,000
I agree this subsidizes oil costs and we should stop doing it. Major oil companies have almost no production in the Middle East. They should be lobbying to cut off military protection since a cut in Middle East production would increase the price of their products greatly. It would only take a cut of a few million barrels per day to have oil prices sky rocket. Remember what happened in the 1970's or just a few years ago when the price of oil was over 100 per barrel.
Similar threads
