The argument generally is that because of Global Warming we need more regulation on oil companies to make them more environmentally friendly. Disregarding whether or not Global Warming is true I would put the blame for it squarely on the shoulders of the Fed. Were it not for the enormous amount of money spent by the fed on the oil industry we would have a true market price for petroleum and gasoline. The oil industry has to pay far less taxes, has it's product partially payed for by the government, and has it's sources of oil protected by the military. It dominates the energy market simply because the market is not a free one. If the free market were truly in effect gasoline prices would be much higher which would drive the demand for things like solar energy. For those who fear global warming it seems it would make more sense to promote the free market to them as a means to end the oil monopoly instead of fighting the losing battle of arguing against global warming.
Has this been raised in an article somewhere and fine tuned?
I don't think so, but frankly, I don't think it's a likely scenario either. True, Big Oil gets a few favors here and there. But many oil-related goods are also taxed heavily and the production of oil is hampered by many environmental regulations. Without those, drilling near the shores and in Alaska would produce a plethora of additional oil. And if it weren't for OPEC controlling the production rates of oil companies, who knows what could be pumped out of the sand every day. Plus, renewable energy is being subsidized to the hilt. There may be some use for certain types of renewable energy production in specific geographical areas, but I just don't see the future envisioned by greenies in which every house is run by photovoltaic plants and cars run on good faith in Gaia. Unless peak oil proves to be a serious threat and/or some new and cheap energy source is discovered, fossil fuels will remain the lubricant of the world economy. I don't see anything threatening its status anytime soon, except for forcibly implemented pie-in-the-sky government ideas.
I tend to agree, with your preconditions, that it is the governments fault through subsidies. Most of the pollution, IMHO, is due to the government giving special provision to pollute, and not enforcing property rights. As fr sources of full argument, not that I know of
I like it when people say "in a free market, this WILL happen"... Being a bit presumptuous aren't you?
This is apparently a Man Talk Forum: No Women Allowed!
Telpeurion's Disliked Person of the Week: David Kramer