U.S. Taxpayers Have Subsidized Fossil Fuels for 111 Years, and Counting | For the fourth year in a row, President Biden is trying to eliminate federal tax breaks for coal, oil and gas companies.

Won't anyone think of the poor oil industry?? How else can we continue to support the industry with little capital to invest in exploration, development, and paying off politicians?

We are so hopelessly corrupt as a nation

This is the best summary I could come up with:

That tax break proved so lucrative it prompted celebrities like Jimmy Stewart, Frank Sinatra and Bing Crosby to become oilmen on the side, buying interests in oil wells and using the deduction to shelter their Hollywood income.

Last year, American companies pumped 13 million barrels each day on average, a record that had made the United States the largest crude oil producer in the world, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Instead of investing in their businesses, the oil and gas companies have poured profits into “stock buybacks, mergers, and acquisitions that benefited executives and wealthy shareholders,” the Biden administration said on a fact sheet accompanying the budget proposal.

“The Biden Administration and their radical climate advisers have disregarded common sense by requesting Congress remove these incentives before we accomplish an energy transition that doesn’t sacrifice reliability and affordability,” Mr. Manchin said in a statement.

“It’s just corporate welfare,” said Joseph Aldy, a professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University who served as a special adviser to President Barack Obama on energy issues.

Others note the irony of continued government support for fossil fuels at a time when scientists say nations must rapidly transition away from oil, gas and coal to cut the carbon emissions that are driving climate change.

The original article contains 1,361 words, the summary contains 216 words. Saved 84%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

Geez, especially that intangible drilling benefit, needs to go. From the description in that article, that would be a great idea to encourage the risky process of new drilling. I can see how we’d want to do that for most of the last century. However, it should have been the first subsidy to go when we started trying to transition to renewables. Why encourage development of new resources that we’re trying to move away from?

It’s the same thing with new pipelines. Assuming everything remains the same, they’d be a great investment, but we can’t afford to have ebpverything remain the same. Arguably we can’t afford a long enough timeline for them to pay off. Why destroy the environment for a long term investment that we’re trying to stop

Starting this year I now have an extra tax I must pay because I use too little oil. 120$ btw