There’s no doubt about it, development of renewable energy is time consuming and expensive, which is probably why it isn’t nearly as advanced as fossil fuel energy sources.
Tax incentives and federal funding have done much to bring renewable energy out of the lab and into the real world. Solar installations, electric vehicles and biofuels are slowly starting to accelerate and are gaining in popularity.
It’s quite possible that, without federal funding and tax incentives [for both company and consumer], leading companies like Tesla Motors and First Solar may never have been able to develop clean technology and renewable energy or even have a market for their developments.
The Obama Administration proposes to eliminate standing tax breaks for oil and natural gas companies. If Obama is pushing for more renewable energy, this makes sense, but then why would Oregon Senator Ron Wyden suggest equal treatment? According to Wyden, the inconsistent nature of energy tax incentives keeps some people from investing fully into renewable energy technology.
Equal treatment, under Obama’s proposals, would cut tax incentives and federal funding to solar, wind and hydroelectric plants as well, which seems like a step backwards. Senator Wyden wants to keep tax incentives in place for both fossil fuels and renewable energy. This sounds like some backwards thinking.
The federal government has the power to decide which direction the country moves in, so cutting incentives for fossil fuel development would move the US in the direction of renewables. Asking for equal treatment seems to be just another push to maintain the status quo.