Exxon Posts First-Quarter Profit of $8.4 Billion

NPR is reporting that Exxon posted a 1st quarter profit of 8.4 BILLION (yes, with a B) today. 8.4 Billion. with a B.

Now, I don't like paying $3/gal more than anyone else for gasoline, but I understand the economics of the situation. Gasoline supplies are tight, and if the price of gas doesn't rise then we end up with gas shortages as people continue to drive their SUV's and Hummers with not a care in the world. As it is, gas reserves are dangerously tight--another disaster like Katrina and we'll be remembering fondly the days when you could get a gallon of gas for about the cost of a Double Whopper with cheese. But honestly, that's not what pisses me off.

What pisses me off is that the oil industry get some of the biggest governement tax breaks in the entire budget. Ostensibly for "exploration", it is these subsidies that finance $400 million compensation packages for executives like Exxon's CEO. Its these subsidies that allow oil companies to post ridiculously high profits like this. And when the few politicians that AREN'T firmly in the oil industry's pockets talk about reducing or, god forbid, eliminating the tax subsidies, they make veiled threats about passing the burden onto consumers.

Its exactly that kind of attitude that gets an industry regulated. The oil industry is a boil on the ass of humanity. So here's my proposal: get rid of the subsidies altogether. No company that can post profits--PROFITS!!! not just REVENUE, but PROFITS!!!!--like that in a 3 month period needs government help. That's more than the entire economy of some nations. The additional money in the government budget should be earmarked to push alternative energy technologies--research into fuel cells, ethanol development, tax breaks for ethanol stations, doubling or even tripling the individual tax credit for hybrid vehicles, wind & hydro technology, and especially research into converting military assets to green energy derivatives. Its ridiculous that so much of our national security infrastructure relies on a region of the world with whom we seem to be constantly at odds. Eliminating this tax subsidy would go a long way to financing the tax breaks for the wealthy the Bushes seem so intent on providing.

Additionally, I think any vehicle over a certain weight should require a special class of license to drive, and state laws for this requirement should be tied to highway funding the way it was when the Reagans, in their infinite wisdom, decided should be the case for alcohol. I'm not sure how much exactly, because I'm not a car person and I don't know what trucks weigh, but basically anything bigger than something like a silverado (and maybe not even that big) ought to require some kind of additional certification on one's ability to drive. You shouldn't be able to own or operate something like a hummer at the age of 18, period. While this isn't tied directly to fuel efficiency it would certainly reduce the number of these vehicles on the road.

Lastly provide incentives both for the development of products like biodiesel mods and plug-in hybrids that can be charged off the power-grid, and for greener grid technology like wind energy. For individuals with a daily commute of less than about 20 miles, this would give them the ability to get as much as 180 mpg, reduce demand for gasoline (which would allow gas to be cheaper again, assuming the oil industry would reduce prices to match, which we all know they wouldn't--again making the case for antitrust action and tight regulation as a public utility) and allow consumers to use green credits to charge the cars. Merely by switching to the power grid we reduce our dependence on foreign oil supplies by increasing our use of domestic supplies of energy like coal and nuclear power.

This all seems elementary to almost everyone I talk to, Republicans and Democrats alike. Its blatantly obvious that the motivation for Congress to keep the status quo is solely related to the deep pockets of the oil industry. Am I the only one who remembers the rhetoric in the 2000 campaign claiming that one of Bush's "pluses" was that his cabinet had a lot of energy experience and would bring that to the table, keeping the costs of energy low? Glad that one worked out so well...