20,555
edits
Changes
SW: →Government Funding and Loans for Coal Plants: - add section
In June 2010, the U.S. [[Energy Information Administration]] (EIA) said $557 billion was spent to subsidize fossil fuels globally in 2008, compared to $43 billion in support of renewable energy. In a July 2011 [http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf EIA report] on federal fossil fuel subsidies, coal was estimated to have tax expenditures (provisions in the federal tax code that reduce the tax liability of firms) with an estimated value of $561 million in FY 2010, down from $3.3 billion in FY 2007.<ref>Alex Morales, [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-29/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-12-times-support-for-renewables-study-shows.html "Fossil Fuel Subsidies Are Twelve Times Renewables Support"] Bloomberg, July 29, 2010.</ref>
==Government Funding and Loans for Coal Plantsand Infrastructure==
A 2010 report by Synapse Energy Economics, [http://www.sierraclub.org/coal/downloads/2010-04-13-FedCoalReport.pdf "Phasing Out Federal Subsidies for Coal"] found the U.S. federal government provides billions of dollars in subsidies for the coal industry. The report was written by Lucy Johnston (Synapse Energy Economics), Lisa Hamilton (Rockefeller Family Fund), Mark Kresowik ([[Sierra Club]]), Tom Sanzillo (TR Rose Associates), and David Schlissel (Schlissel Technical Consulting) and was released on April 13, 2010.
===Report Conclusions===
The report concludes that the [[Obama]] Administration "has taken a proactive approach to leading the country towards a clean energy future. Numerous initiatives among federal agencies, including support for federally mandated carbon restrictions, a moratorium on direct loans for coal-fired power plants, Treasury guidance for development banks’ lending for coal-fired power plants, SEC guidance for public companies regarding climate change risk, are all evidence of an increasing awareness of the interplay between energy and environmental policy and financial policy. There remain certain distinct areas where federal financial policy implementation is not consistent with, and is even in conflict with, clear federal efforts to adapt to a carbon constrained future. Inconsistencies in federal policy require federal administrative intervention; private companies will not necessarily remedy the inconsistency. The disconnect between federal policies not only sets the nation back in achieving energy and environmental policy goals, but also places taxpayer dollars at risk. As regulatory policy changes, as financial circumstances change, so must the administrative financial policies of the federal government."
===Government subsidies for railroads===
In 2009, coal accounted for 47 percent of tonnage and 25 percent of revenue for U.S. railroads, according to the Association of American Railroads. U.S. railroads get loans and loan guarantees from government agencies including the Department of Transportation/Federal Railroad Administration, and receive numerous tax incentives for investments in new infrastructure.
According to Climate Progress: "The relationship between coal and railroads becomes more important when considering coal exports. On Tuesday, the Associated Press reported that American coal exports have “surged” to the highest levels since 1991. A large portion of these exports are going to Asian countries, where coal use has exploded. This begs the question: are American taxpayers subsidizing the coal boom in countries like China, thus helping accelerate global warming at an even faster rate?"<ref>[http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/13/463874/top-three-ways-that-american-taxpayers-subsidize-dirty-coal-development/ "Top Three Ways That American Taxpayers Subsidize Dirty Coal Development,"] Think Progress, Apr 13, 2012.</ref>
==Lost Government Revenue==