Comparing Apples and Oranges: Energy Subsidies

My friend Bill Porth doesn't much like the hoary admonition not to compare apples and oranges - he thinks the comparability of dissimilar things is one aspect of logical thought. Why can't you compare the attributes of an apple with those of an orange? Well, anyway, the idea is that you should compare things using a similar reference point. If that's the goal, the Environmental Law Institute seems to have failed it in its analysis of energy subsidies given to various energy sources.

ELI reports that renewable sources of energy were provided with less than half the subsidies given to fossil fuel sources. Yet the amount of energy produced by fossil fuels in America would be much greater than the relatively small amount of energy produced by renewables. On a cost-per-unit-of-energy basis, subsidies of fossil fuels would cost far less than subsidies of renewables. That is something to keep in mind when groups cite ELI's study as evidence that fossil fuels have a competitive advantage derived from subsidies. The fact is, fossil fuels pay their own way, and renewables still need to be subsidized.

You can see reports and summaries on the web, such as this article from Biodiesel magazine, and outraged bloggers, such as this one from a Science and Technology News Forum.

Alternative energy subsidies can be money well-spent. Tax breaks for solar, wind, geothermal et al are reasonable means of encouraging a diversification of energy sources, allowing greater competition among energy producers and flexibility in our energy use. But if ELI is suggesting that fossil fuels currently have an advantage because of tax breaks, I think they are mistaken.