Friday, January 20, 2012

Tax Dollar Returns

In researching the January 17th article on making friends for algae-based renewable fuel production, I found it remarkable the disconnection between military fuel requirements and priorities and federal government spending.

Goal:  The U.S. Navy’s goal is to have a “green fleet” by 2016 and increase alternative fuels to 50% of Navy operations by 2020. 

Spending:  According to the International Energy Agency, fossil fuels received $409 billion in subsidies globally in 2010, compared with $66 billion for renewable power.

If the U.S. military requires renewable fuel as matter of strategy  -  political and environmental, then why is it supporting the fossil fuel industry to a greater extent that it supports renewable fuels?

The critics of federal spending have pounced on the failure of Solyndra, a failed renewable fuels developer that received large federal loan guarantees.  It is held up as an example of a waste of tax dollars, poor government administration and politics gone awry.  All of that criticism is probably well deserved in this specific case.

However, I think the real question tax payers should be asking is why is the government using tax dollars to support opposing goals?  There cannot be a very good return supporting fossil fuels all the while the country is attempting to reduce dependence upon imported oils and find alternative fuels in adequate volumes. 


Neither the author of the Small Cap Strategist web log, Crystal Equity Research nor its affiliates have a beneficial interest in the companies mentioned herein.

No comments: