U.S. spends $1.5 billion on developing renewable energy; this enough considering Exxon makes $1 billion a day?

Question

The numbers are right. Taken from both the OMB and Exxon itself. I find it very troubling, considering that oil will most likely cease to be a resource in another 40-50 years.

Shouldn't we be spending a staggering more on renewable energy so we can be among the world's leaders?

Answer 1

I believe that billion a day is revenue, not profit. So they take in $365 billion a year and spend maybe $355 billion to get the oil, leaving $10 billion profit. The government takes in WAY more than $365 billion a year in taxes, and they spend most of it on social security and medicare. They spend a lesser amount on interest on the debt and the military. What is left over is used for everything else, including energy research. Yes, they spend enough. The question is do they spend it well?

Answer 2

You're comparing the total income of a major corporation with R&D spending by a government.  It's like comparing apples and toast.  We could probably spend more on looking into renewables, but comparing it to a company's daily income is not germane to finding an appropriate spending level.  Calm down.

By the way, ExxonMobil's 3rd Quarter 2007 earnings were just under 10 billion, far short of your billion a day figure.

Answer 3

So what! Exxon produces a useful product. No one has to buy from exxon. The governemrnt takes Gazillions and produces c**p!

Answer 4

we should spend 1.4 Trillion dollars per year the Temp has risin 0.05 of a degree in 100 years

Here in Denmark we´ve been carbontaxed for years, which makes it pretty funny when they say that GW skeptic scientist are paid by evil politicians and the oil industry wich controles them. Man made GW is a dream come true for the politicians since they´re always looking for new ways to tax people.

Answer 5

We need to tell the truth here. The Government of the USA spent 1.5 Billion of our dollars on new energy forms. Exxon spent even more, let alone other companies. Today here is what we know:  many of mankind’s advancements cause earth surface to warm, destroy the ozone layer, kill off endanger species, heat cities, and in some way cause more destruction.  Blacktop (roads and parking lots), buildings, air pollution (causes lung and other diseases), deforestation, duststorms (which increase hurricanes and cyclones and cause lung diseases), fires (cause pollution, mud slides, and deforestation), refrigerants (like CFC's), solvents (including benzene destroy the ozone layer raising skin cancer rates) and plastics; cars, airplanes, ships and most electricity production (causes pollution including raised CO2 levels) are human problems we need to fix to keep life on earth sustainable! The federal government needs to adopt a pollution surcharge to balance the field and advance new technologies. We must pay the real price of oil (petrochemicals) including global warming, cleanup and for health effects. But with that we must understand we have never seen what is now happening before. CO2 has never lead to temperature change, but temperature change has led to increases in CO2. The models have to be made as we go along with little evidence! The result is:  change is on the way, we just do not know what changes. But again adding a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere enlarges the earths sun collection causing warming; increase water in the atmosphere and they form clouds cooling earth but causing flooding. Even natural events are warming earth and causing destruction. The sun has an increased magnetic field causing increases in earthquakes (more destruction), volcanoes (wow, great destruction), and sun spots. Lighting produces ozone near the surface (raising air pollution levels). But humans have destroyed half of the wetlands, cut down nearly half of the rain forest, and advance on the earths grasslands while advancing desertification which increases duststorms. The USA Mayor's have taken a stand and I believe are on the right track, we can have control and can have economic growth. With the peak of oil in the 1970’s, the peak of ocean fishing in the 1980’s, humans must stop procrastinating and make real changes to keep earth sustainable including in the energy debate, finance and regulation. The sun is available to produce energy, bring light to buildings and makes most of human’s fresh water. Composting is the answer to desertification. New dams are the answer to fresh water storage, energy and cooling earth by evaporation, we need many small ones all over (California needs 100 by 2012 and has not even started).

President Bush has made a choice of energy (ethanol) over food and feeding the starving people around the world; this is a choice China has rejected.

That is why I founded CoolingEarth.org, a geoengineering web sight where you can learn more about earth, the atmosphere, and how to sustain life on earth’s surface.

We need solar, wind, small hydro, and a tax on old forms of energy.

Answer 6

not till bush owns solar panel  stock .

Answer 7

great question

Answer 8

considering the government gets over 400 billion a year to play with, yes they might as well be giving 50 cents to fund reneweable energy.

Instead, they actually want to spend less and even NONE on any sort of alternative. They're just too fixated on keeping oil in the system until every last drop is used up. they care about money more than anything.

It's actually destroying our country by going out of our way to stay on oil. How many new jobs would be created by alternative energy, there's be no wars, and the economy would soar

Answer 9

We need to spend more.  However that doesn't satify lawmakers.  Even though it will pay off in the long run, it doesn't make them look good now.  A catch-22