On May 18, 2008, at 5:28 PM, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
If all the U.S. government did was eliminate its subsidies to the petroleum industry, it wouldn't have to do anything more - $8/gal gas would compel alternatives all on their own.
Every time I have bothered to look into the basis of the "subsidized gasoline" assertion and related policy arguments I have found little but specious reasoning, selective accounting, playing fast and loose with definitions, or some other type of deceptive argument. There may be subsidies of some type to the oil industry, but the magnitudes that could reasonably be argued one way or another are not remotely of the magnitude so often asserted. There are plenty of good reasons to move away from fossil fuels, but silly arguments will just make people ignore the good arguments.
Global warming is a good example of this writ large: there are enough transparently stupid assertions loudly made by vocal advocates on both sides that they drown out and discredit by association the reasonable ones that could actually inform consensus. If people were more willing to police their own advocates we might be more likely to end up with reasonable policies and people would have less cause to be skeptical. Dubious arguments may be overlooked by the ideological choir, but they are not the ones the preacher is trying to convince.
J. Andrew Rogers
