Falsehoods and fossil fuels

Jim Constantopoulos (“Tax incentives for oil and gas companies are important,” Looking In, Oct. 10) cites not one source of information, relying repeatedly on the old “studies have shown” dodge. Dr. Constantopoulos, a respected geologist at Eastern New Mexico University, surely knows that serious argument requires documentation. His failure to offer any suggests that fossil fuel subsidies are simply insupportable.

Constantopoulos correctly states one thing: Fracking recently made the U.S. the world oil and gas production leader (U.S. Energy Information Agency, not cited). He goes on to claim, without documentation, that increased production is leading to massive hiring and lower consumer prices, and that Americans “show strong bipartisan support for increased U.S. production of oil and natural gas.” With these dubious and distorted assertions he justifies fossil fuel subsidies.

That we are the world’s largest petroleum producer hardly squares with the belief that the industry “would not be able to compete with foreign rivals” without subsidies. ExxonMobil holds the all-time record for single-quarter profit, making $1,287 profit per second that year. Even after the 2008 price drop, Chevron Corporation, BP and others were exceeding analyst expectations. These are not “foreign rivals” but multinationals, playing one country against another.

As for the jobs-jobs-jobs spiel, Forbes reported in 2016 that 118,000 oil and gas jobs were eliminated the previous year, partly because subsidy-aided technology upgrades focused on robotics to replace human workers. That same month, Forbes ran the headline, “Solar employs more people in U.S. electricity generation than oil, coal and gas combined.” In March, the Center for American Progress went further: “Clean energy employs more people than fossil fuels in nearly every state.” Clean energy jobs are growing 12 times faster than the economy (Bureau of Labor Statistics). Such jobs, as one Forbes researcher notes, cannot be off-shored, nor their output sold overseas while domestic prices rise.

As for public approval, polls by Gallup (2016) and Pew (2017) found that 66 percent and 73 percent, respectively, of Americans “prioritized alternative energy over oil and gas,” including 51 percent of Republicans. Contrary to common opinion, support for alternatives persists even when gasoline prices are low.

Fossil fuel subsidies are not a trivial public cost. An International Monetary Fund study (“Counting the Cost of Energy Subsidies,” July 2015) calculated global fossil fuel subsidies of $5.3 trillion annually and rising. This is 6.5 percent of the global gross domestic product and a horrifying $10 million per minute (that’s Puerto Rico’s annual budget).

If taxpayers are giving such amounts to private companies, we have the right and responsibility to demand real results. Yet there is precious little evidence that tax breaks to industry actually result in innovation or jobs; more often, subsidies end up costing the state or municipality. Oil and gas production undergoes boom and bust cycles, extracting profits short-term and leaving communities in long-term financial limbo. Subsidies, one has to conclude, primarily result in higher profits for companies and CEOs. To have any legitimacy, tax breaks must be contingent (with teeth) on wellpaid jobs, infrastructure investments and retooling for safety or pollution prevention.

Instead, we see extractive industries freely wasting taxpayer money. Lobbying to insert “praise fossil fuels” into the New Mexico Public Education Department’s science standards can’t have come cheap. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt diverts taxpayer dollars from protecting the environment to protecting himself, with extra bodyguards and soundproof rooms. ExxonMobil used its subsidy-leveraged profits to pay for the fake science that underpins climate denial. Oil subsidies ultimately inflate the election-trashing power of billionaires like the Koch brothers.

We, as taxpayers, have the right to choose which, if any, industries we subsidize, and to dictate that subsidies return social benefits, not merely profits. Nearly three-quarters of us feel such support should go to solar and wind power, an investment in creating a livable future. Kim Sorvig is a research associate professor at The University of New Mexico School of Architecture and Planning.