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
I don’t think that’s something controllable by a single person. Especially given any attempt at regulating the oil industry has been overruled by the authoritarian supreme court.
It’s so irrational that he can’t just… do it!? Like wasn’t he elected by Americans to make decisions on behalf of the people, of whom overwhelmingly support sensible decisions like this!?
I know the world is more complex than this but surely we need to unfuck the world like DAMN we’re just going to collapse instead…
The US government is designed to split power across multiple individials and institutions. So no, he can’t just do some things. And changing the tax code is one of them.
In particular, Congress has the power to levy taxes and allocate budgets. All the President can do is influence, encourage. He has more influence within his own party but they all vote according to their beliefs, and he has very little influence on the opposing party
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?
Add comment