Table 1 below compares energy production from Oil & Gas with Alternative Energy that includes solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and bio mass. Not contained in this list are coal and nuclear. Shown in the table are political campaign expenditures made by Oil & Gas and Alternative Energy organizations. Political campaign contribution data was derived with appreciation from OpenSecrets.org.
The ratios line in the table shows that Oil & Gas spent far more on political campaign donations than Alternative Energy by 28 to 1. On the other hand, Oil & Gas produced more energy than Alternative Energy by more than 7 to 1.
Table 1. Lobbying Versus Energy Production
|Campaign Contributions, 2012||Energy Produced, 2009 (quads)|
|* Oil & Gas||$70M||58.6|
|* Alternative Energy||$2.5M||7.7|
|(1 quad: 36M tons of coal)|
Political campaign money spent by Oil & Gas pays handsomely. Consider tax breaks for example:
In contrast, wind Alternative Energy received far less consistent Congressional support compared to Oil & Gas:
- Congress is for sale.
- Alternative Energy might be more successful if it matched political campaign money donated by Oil & Gas. More Alternative Energy influence money might “buy” increased R&D funding from Congress needed by that industry to become commercially viable. Oil & Gas is a technically mature industry and needs little governmental R&D funding or massive tax breaks.
- Oil & Gas influence money (i.e., Congressional/Presidential campaign donations) detract from what ought to be the primary energy mission of the United States: insuring the long term survivability of this country with Alternative Energy. Non-renewable energies will eventually decline to a level where they are unaffordable.