T-Rex by Scott Kinmartin

I’m no economist, but from what I understand, incentives tend to encourage certain behaviors. For example, if I gave Billy $10 to punch his little sister, he’d probably do it.  Now, if I came along and offered him $10 to punch her or $5 not to punch her, I suspect he’d be compelled to punch her again.

With what Billy has learned from our little social experiment, he could someday serve as chair of the committee that sets our national energy policy.  His sister will likely found a renewable energy company.

A recent study from the Environmental Law Institute attempts to quantify the incentives that Uncle Sam provides to stimulate various energy sources, from dinosaur-based fossil fuel technologies that have been around since the dawn of man (literally) to newer, cleaner, greener renewable sources.  Guess what: we’re still heaping money on mature technologies, feeding the proverbial dinosaur, and starving the fledgling renewables.

According to the study:

• The federal government provided substantially larger subsidies to fossil fuels than to renewables. Subsidies to fossil fuels—a mature, developed industry that has enjoyed government support for many years—totaled approximately $72 billion over the study period, representing a direct cost to taxpayers.
• Subsidies for renewable fuels, a relatively young and developing industry, totaled $29 billion over the same period.
• Subsidies to fossil fuels generally increased over the study period (though they decreased in 2008), while funding for renewables increased but saw a precipitous drop in 2006-07 (though they increased in 2008). The largest subsidies to fossil fuels were written into the U.S. Tax Code as permanent provisions. By comparison, many subsidies for renewables are time-limited initiatives implemented through energy bills, with expiration dates that limit their usefulness to the renewables industry.

So, we give two and a half times more money permanently to technologies we’re trying to get rid of, and then wonder why these “renewables just aren’t cost effective.”  Maybe the policies are set by dinosaurs themselves: they are not noted for their large, complex brains.

The other eye-0pener in this graph is just how much money we’ve funneled to the lackluster ethanol industry.

• Almost half of the subsidies for renewables are attributable to corn-based ethanol, the use of which, while decreasing American reliance on foreign oil, raises considerable questions about effects on climate.

Is anyone else interested in stopping ALL the subsidies and seeing which technologies win out in a massive evolution-inspired free-for-all?

Spoiler alert: the dinosaurs don’t make it out alive.

Can't get enough? Try these related posts:

1. This just in: corn ethanol “was not a good policy.”
2. Brazil Calls Our Bluff
3. Recession Regression
4. The Big Bag Battle: Can reusable bags make you sick?
5. Why does organic food cost more?