# Can someone explain to me why conservatives are against renewable energy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 14, 2011, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686 "2011-03-14T18:52:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2011, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/122 "2011-03-17T00:19:49Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The carbon tax will also go to deal with adaptation efforts, if the China government wants to let millions be at the mercy of extreme weather changes and not invest in taxes to deal with it, I would not be opposed to see that government go under. You’re going to have to elaborate on this. Just how is China’s government supposed to ‘go under’? The Chinese government is a dictatorship. It has killed millions of its own people. It’s perfectly capable of deciding that having a few million people die in the grand cause of economic development is acceptable, and of defending itself against any outrage that may develop over that. It’s also capable of recognizing the political calculus that doing something about global warming hurts it’s people today, but doing nothing hurts the people of some future administration long after the current leaders are dead. And that will always be the case - even fifty years from now. Because _those_ leaders will still be faced with the fact that any cost they impose on the people at that time to halt further greenhouse gas emissions will only benefit people a generation or two down the road. In an era where almost every goverment in the world is racking up huge debts to give current citizens benefit at the expense of future generations, what makes you think they’re going to behave differently with respect to global warming? While we’re at it, how come the left is so adamant about saving future economic costs of global warming, while advocating spending today that also imposes fiscal costs on future generations? > [@](#): > > Do I detect once again the denial of science? Currently fossil fuels are efficient but their economy is in reality an illusion when taking into consideration the real price that will be paid. Assigning a more reasonable price for their use with the real costs included is needed, specially since it is clear that not much will be done soon. No, it’s you who is denying economics. I understand the externality cost of carbon. What you apparently don’t understand is that if you apply an externality tax on carbon in one country, and that has the effect of increasing the externality in another, it does _nothing_. The externality still exists. Now, I don’t think carbon taxes would be completely offset by increased carbon output in other countries. But even if 20% of the carbon simply shifts elsewhere, that changes the whole economic equation. It makes the carbon tax less efficient. > [@](#): > > You are still missing that the tax also includes using the revenue with preparations to deal with the expected effects. It does, huh? Just like the revenue from Social Security payments was put away for future generations. We both know that any revenue from carbon taxes raised in the United States will be used to either give people other tax cuts, or to pay down the deficit, or to pay for more social programs. If you think you can find the political will to impose a carbon tax on the public and then send that money to pay for levee construction on the coast of Africa, you’re nuts. > [@](#): > > BTW I’m beginning to to doubt you are following the science, there is already an expected level of disruption that is coming even if we stop using fossil fuels completely, the efforts now are geared to prevent an even worse future. I agree, and I never said otherwise. So maybe the 53 billion that you want as a _down payment_ on high speed rail should be used for that. Have you done the math to figure out if that money might be better spent that way? Or maybe the money should be applied to the deficit to encourage economic growth that will compound and make future generations so wealthy they can deal with it on their own. Somehow I never hear those arguments from your side. > [@](#): > > Nope, Bjorn Lomborg is an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School. Which means he can’t be an environmentalist? > [@](#): > > His environmentalism is not his main angle on the issue, his approach and his group is formed by economists. Yes - and thank god someone with the green eyeshades is trying to inject a reality check here. Are you anti-economics? Why don’t you follow the economics? Are you a denier? > [@](#): > > Once again, are you still trying to dismiss the science? The big problem is that what the current Republican leadership and almost all others are doing is to be skeptic not only of what economists that deal with the issue are recommending, but also what climate scientists are recommending. Climate scientists are not holy sages. Their recommendations have to be balanced against a lot of factors they are _not_ expert in. Such as economics. > [@](#): > > BTW you did notice who that scientist was the one that made the note to Orrin Hatch? Leftists are not the only ones telling the conservatives to stop ignoring science. Quite true. Which is why in my last message I said that this is an affliction that affects everyone. Bias is insidious. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2011, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/123 "2011-03-17T00:22:07Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nah, it is clear to all that you did not see the video nor the references explaining that alternative electric cars are also part of the solution. So if you’re going to have efficient electric cars - why the hell would you want high-speed rail? Now you can’t even use the argument that HSR runs on electricity which can be generated from non-greenhouse sources, which is about the only argument you had left. HSR looks even worse when you compare it against future electric cars. If you support such big, heavy, energy-sucking beasts, why do you hate the planet? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2011, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/124 "2011-03-17T00:38:17Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > You’re going to have to elaborate on this. Just how is China’s government supposed to ‘go under’? The Chinese government is a dictatorship. It has killed millions of its own people. It’s perfectly capable of deciding that having a few million people die in the grand cause of economic development is acceptable, and of defending itself against any outrage that may develop over that. It’s also capable of recognizing the political calculus that doing something about global warming hurts it’s people today, but doing nothing hurts the people of some future administration long after the current leaders are dead. And that will always be the case - even fifty years from now. Because _those_ leaders will still be faced with the fact that any cost they impose on the people at that time to halt further greenhouse gas emissions will only benefit people a generation or two down the road. > > In an era where almost every goverment in the world is racking up huge debts to give current citizens benefit at the expense of future generations, what makes you think they’re going to behave differently with respect to global warming? China was had less of a free market when they followed the world restrictions on CFCs. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > While we’re at it, how come the left is so adamant about saving future economic costs of global warming, while advocating spending today that also imposes fiscal costs on future generations? That only works by ignoring that not being prepared will mean to spend even more to solve a crisis instead of unpleasantness. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > No, it’s you who is denying economics. And that is why you later make an effort of ignoring what is the strength of Lomberg. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > It does, huh? Just like the revenue from Social Security payments was put away for future generations. We both know that any revenue from carbon taxes raised in the United States will be used to either give people other tax cuts, or to pay down the deficit, or to pay for more social programs. If you think you can find the political will to impose a carbon tax on the public and then send that money to pay for levee construction on the coast of Africa, you’re nuts. Luckily I did not made that straw man argument. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I agree, and I never said otherwise. So maybe the 53 billion that you want as a _down payment_ on high speed rail should be used for that. Have you done the math to figure out if that money might be better spent that way? > > Or maybe the money should be applied to the deficit to encourage economic growth that will compound and make future generations so wealthy they can deal with it on their own. Somehow I never hear those arguments from your side. That straw must be bought in bulk to make economical sense of the amount you use. 🙂 > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Which means he can’t be an environmentalist? Point me at the degrees he has on that or the related research that he as done. Incidentally I have to point out that that would only strengthen my point, we will then an economist with environmental credentials that is telling you that you are indeed letting your bias take control, or to be on a roll. 🙂 > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Yes - and thank god someone with the green eyeshades is trying to inject a reality check here. Are you anti-economics? Why don’t you follow the economics? Are you a denier? See what I mean, attempting to minimize what Lomborg is recommending is vital for your bias. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Climate scientists are not holy sages. Their recommendations have to be balanced against a lot of factors they are _not_ expert in. Such as economics. And that would work if Lomborg was just an environmentalist. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Quite true. Which is why in my last message I said that this is an affliction that affects everyone. Bias is insidious. And that is why I look at the science, when it is clear that the blind are guiding the blind in the current Republican party, it is folly to expect \*\*any \*\*solutions to come from them. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2011, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/125 "2011-03-17T00:38:45Z")
WRT high speed rail, it’s nice that modern cars are more energy efficient than trains I suppose, but if people can’t afford that new efficient car, they’ve got public transpo. Right? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2011, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/126 "2011-03-17T00:40:41Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > So if you’re going to have efficient electric cars - why the hell would you want high-speed rail? Such a roll to be when attempting to continue with the straw :), I guess it has to be spelled: I have not expressed much of a support for high speed rail. IMHO it is only a good solution in specific areas. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2011, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/127 "2011-03-17T01:46:00Z")
Quoth **Sam Stone** : > [@](#): > > I wish everything we have could be powered by wind and solar and unicorn tears. Why do you want to make unicorns cry? You monster! ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2011, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/128 "2011-03-17T01:52:53Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > WRT high speed rail, it’s nice that modern cars are more energy efficient than trains I suppose, but if people can’t afford that new efficient car, they’ve got public transpo. Right? Whats wrong with a bus? Doesnt cost billions. Can go anywhere. Great flexibility in its use. Why do we need fancy high speed rail for poor or cheap people? ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2011, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/129 "2011-03-17T02:01:34Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > Whats wrong with a bus? Doesnt cost billions. Can go anywhere. Great flexibility in its use. > > Why do we need fancy high speed rail for poor or cheap people? You take the bus to the train, then you take the train to work, 200 miles away? Something like that? What on earth makes you think only poor people commute on trains? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2011, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/130 "2011-03-17T03:41:01Z")
What makes you think poor people will be able to afford high speed rail? The estimated cost of a ticket on California’s HSR link between San Franscisco and LA has [already risen](http://www.nbcbayarea.com/traffic/transit/High-Speed-Ticket-Price-Triples-79319952.html) from $55 to $105 one-way. The project is WAY over budget, and construction hasn’t even started yet. The California HSR project is a textbook case of what happens when textbook plans written by advocates and promoted by politicians run into the real world of engineering. The price of a one-way ticket on the train in the new business plan is already 83% of the cost of an airline flight. By the time this thing is built, it will cost more to ride the train than it will to take an airplane. As a result, ridership will drop, the train will have to get big subsidies, and it will be horribly energy inefficient because it will be running at well below capacity. And that link is one of the two or three that made most sense in America. Now maybe you can understand why those governors turned down Washington’s ‘free’ seed capital for their own HSR projects. They could smell the white elephant from a mile away. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2011, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/131 "2011-03-17T05:56:24Z")
There are conservationist conservatives, I used to consider myself one. It’s just really hard to stomach voting GOP when you’re a serious conservationist. After the torture without trial debacle & once I changed my thinking on economics, I pretty much decided I was never going back. The right–by which I mean the leadership, the elected pols, the partisan press, even the base–had sneered at my core values all along. I’m a conservationist, I used to be a conservative, but one thing I hope isn’t conserved is the modern right-wing. Entirely too many hateful people who base their political identity on being hateful & destructive. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2011, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/132 "2011-03-17T13:41:39Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > You take the bus to the train, then you take the train to work, 200 miles away? Something like that? What on earth makes you think only poor people commute on trains? Maybe they should just live closer to where they work and be more ecologically responsible? Isnt that standard line given for one of the evils of the suburbs? Oh, and if they arent poor, why the heck should we subsidize their transportation needs? ---
**Author:** ![Sablicious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@Sablicious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sablicious)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2011, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/133 "2011-03-17T13:42:17Z")
Conservatives are alligned with the Religious Right who themselves are, by very definition, climate skeptics. If one champions alternate forms of energy [on grounds of environmental benefit], it’s effectively avowing tangible human influence upon the planet – something only God is _meant_ to have veto over. That is, it would be a conflict of interest for Conservatives to be ‘for’ renewable energy. ---
**Author:** ![Cumberdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@Cumberdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cumberdale)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2011, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/134 "2011-03-17T14:00:28Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > What makes you think poor people will be able to afford high speed rail? Are they better able to afford cars, auto insurance, maintenance etc? ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2011, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/135 "2011-03-17T14:16:43Z")
> [@Cumberdale](#): > > Are they better able to afford cars, auto insurance, maintenance etc? Given Sam Stones numbers, I’d say yes. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2011, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/136 "2011-03-17T14:23:55Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > Maybe they should just live closer to where they work and be more ecologically responsible? > > Isnt that standard line given for one of the evils of the suburbs? > > Oh, and if they arent poor, why the heck should we subsidize their transportation needs? When I lived in Sacramento, you could get a nice 5 or 6 bedroom home with a big yard for the dogs & kids for $1000. You could great a great job in SF, but a tiny cramped condo with no yard or even a porch, for I dunno, $4000/month? Lots of people commuted to work everyday. Californians are crazy drivers. Not as in “bad” drivers. But those fuckers will hop in the car and drive two or four hours and think nothing of it. As for whether they should subsidize this train, I dunno. Not everyone living in a big city has a car, and it doesn’t mean they couldn’t afford one. It may just not be worth it, if they can’t park in anywhere. When I was in DC lots of people tried to go without cars, because they couldn’t afford having theirs towed and broken into all the time. I do think if you say you’re going to build a train and the tickets are going to be $50 and after you get approval you say, “I mean $100” there should be lots of firings, starting at the top. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2011, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/137 "2011-03-17T15:54:22Z")
[QUOTE=levdrakon] I do think if you say you’re going to build a train and the tickets are going to be $50 and after you get approval you say, “I mean $100” there should be lots of firings, starting at the top. [/QUOTE] Well, but that’s never going to happen. There’s no ultimate accountability for mis-investment of public funds or pie-in-the-sky projects. The whole point of getting into office is to spend other people’s money on “good ideas” with no consequences when the money just goes to boondoggles and political cronies. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2011, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/138 "2011-03-17T16:24:16Z")
> [@Crawlspace](#): > > Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t oil companies currently receive huge amounts in government subsidies. [QUOTE=Ogre] Both coal and oil receive gigantic amounts of government subsidies, tax breaks, etc. [/QUOTE] I won’t speak for coal, but oil and natural gas do not receive any meaningful federal governement subisidies. I can think of certain state subsidies but none federal. What is usually talked about when saying they receive subsidies is one of the following. - In the '90s, the MMS mistakenly leased a number of offshore blocks without having the appropriate royalties included. As a result, the federal government receives less money than they should have from any production on these leases. This of course is not a subsidy, it was a mistake by the government. - Intangible drilling costs: Many people, including Obama, say that allowing oil and gas companies to expense intangible drilling costs (IDCs) is a subsidy. This is absolutely ridiculous. Effectively, in tax accounting certain types of expenses (most operating expenses) are expensed while others are capitalized and amortized over a period of time. For example, paying a salary is expensed while buying a new piece of machinery is capitalized. As it relates to the oil and gas industry, basically drilling a well is considered the equivalent of buying a piece of machinery and is then capitalized. Certain of the costs associated with the drilling of a well though, the IDCs, are expensed. Basically, any of the costs associated with drilling of a well that have no salvage value such as survey work, wages, fuel, etc, are expensed. Other expenses associated with drilling a well are capitalized. These capitalized items are amortized over certain periods of time, which basically means that portions of them get expensed each year. Because businesses pay taxes on revenues less expenses, if an item is capitalized then only a portion of it will be expensed in a given year and thus they will show higher profit and have a higher tax bill. However, this is simply a timing issue. The entire amount of the expenses, whether expensed or capitalized, will eventually be recognized as an expense and thus offset revenues. - Depletion Allowance: This is simply the equivalent of depreciation for oil and gas properties. When a company purchases a hard asset, they capitalize it and depreciate it over a period of time, which may be close to the life of the asset. When an oil and gas company purchases an oil and gas asset, it was also long ago recognized that they have a finite life since it is a depleting asset. Therefore, it is depleted over time using various methods the most commonly used being the unit of production basis. This is no more of a subsidy than every other company that get to expense capitilized assets over time. The notion that the governement subsidizes the oil and gas industry is simply absurd on its face. It absolutely implies that money comes in from the government to oil and gas companies when that simply isn’t the case. The fact is the oil and gas industry pays huge taxes to the federal, state, and local governments. It is simply a distortion of the truth to call IDCs or depletion allowance a subsidy when it is essentially identical to what every other company has. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2011, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/139 "2011-03-17T16:49:29Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > When I lived in Sacramento, you could get a nice 5 or 6 bedroom home with a big yard for the dogs & kids for $1000. You could great a great job in SF, but a tiny cramped condo with no yard or even a porch, for I dunno, $4000/month? I don’t doubt that. But thats their economic choice to make isn’t it? Thats the same reason people live in the suburbs. But there’s a big class of city folks here on the Dope that have a burning hatred for folks that have the audacity to live in the Burbs and commute to the city. Now maybe you arent one of those. But I see some serious hypocrisy in hatin the buranites while drooling over high speed rail to shuttle the city dwellers around. Particulary after Sam Stones numbers regarding costs, susidies, and actual energy efficiencies. Oh, and Longhorn Dave, thanks for that explanation. I always kinda wondered what the heck they were talking about. Apparently its mostly baloney. ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2011, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/140 "2011-03-17T17:21:15Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > I’ve never seen you not resort to this fallback position, this mantra’s like a security blanket for you when your “logic” is ever challenged – my enemies (every last one of them) are the enemies of God and they are all CRAZY and STOOPID! There CANNOT be any other explanation for their policies! It’s a pretty unconvincing (very unconvincing) approach and you’d do your side more good by resisting the urge constantly to wade in with it on “progressive” issues – you’re making it look like progressive causes depend on a worldview in which more or less half the American populace is insane or retarded, which most sophomore logic students would understand is a difficult premise to sell (to those same people).. … (Partial quote, hope that’s OK, I trimmed a little off the end that didn’t seem relevent to the point I wanted to address.) Both sides of the political spectrum try to account for the less-than-angelic sides of human nature. With the right, it’s the greedy welfare queens in their cadillacs. With the left, it’s the greedy corporate robber barons. I think careful examinations have shown the ‘welfare queen’ meme has little validity. OTH, the right likes to ignore Enron and all it’s ken and pretend every businessman is a noble benefactor of humanity… ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2011, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/141 "2011-03-17T20:02:39Z")
Quoth **billfish678** : > [@](#): > > Oh, and if they arent poor, why the heck should we subsidize their transportation needs? Oh, so you would support ending the subsidies to the transportation of the rich that we now have? Let’s see how the airlines fare when they’re forced to compete on an equal footing. As for subsidies to fossil fuels, the big one is that we let them use the public’s air absolutely free. That’s a _huge_ subsidy. Then you get all the military spending we pour into ensuring that the oil continues to flow: If it weren’t for the oil, we could afford to just completely ignore the Middle East. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686.md?page=8)