• AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    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