Folks can get animated when it comes to discussions of climate science and energy production. Rather than the facts alone, confirmation bias and ideological rigidity can creep in to one’s seemingly common-sense position.

For example, some argue against renewable energy by saying that currently accepted scientific theory on climate change is a “hoax” or a “scam.” These are loaded terms, not material to an actual argument against the current scientific consensus. Nor does such an accusation effectively argue against alternative energy sources.

Even granting that the current global consensus of climate experts is somehow an elaborate hoax, how would that negate the positive dividends of non-polluting renewable energy? The answer is it would not. The argument is irrelevant.

Truth Matters

The truth is the opposite: rather than harmless, the burning of fossil fuels is indeed harmful to the environment and the health of living things. Don’t believe me? Go start your car and leave the garage door closed. (Don’t if you want to live.)

Another popular argument posits that government subsidies mask the true economic liability that is renewable energy. While this seems to fly in the face of the reality that the wind and sunlight are free (and infinite), it is true that Americans have some tax credits available for more efficient home energy infrastructure (such as rooftop solar, geothermal HVAC, etc.). And government has directly subsidized wind and energy projects at the commercial production level.

But if the idea is that government assistance proves the economic futility of an industry, oil and gas take the booby prize. According to the International Monetary Fund, the U.S. government ranks second in the world in its support of the oil and gas industry.

Per IMF, the U.S. federal and state governments give the fossil fuel industry over $20.5 billion in support each year through the tax code, inadequate royalty rates and direct funding. Also per the IMF, U.S. renewables were subsidized to the tune of $15.6 billion in FY 2022.

The truth is, all energy production types are subsidized in the United States, at various amounts and for various reasons.

Fact-Based Decisions

Still, we must ask: Is it possible to set political and ideological considerations aside and make smart, fact-based choices for our shared future of energy consumption and production in Nebraska?

Anyone who lives here knows Nebraska produces comparatively little oil and gas. According to the Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy (NDEE), Nebraska’s crude oil production in 2021 was only 3.68% of the petroleum products consumed in the state. Nebraska’s natural gas production in 2021 was only 0.18% of the natural gas consumed in the state.

But we enjoy an abundance of wind and an enviable amount of sunshine. Needless to say, all or close to all of the solar and wind energy consumed in Nebraska is also produced in Nebraska. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), renewable resources (mostly wind) provided 32% of Nebraska’s total electricity net generation in 2023.

Among a wealth of energy choices, does it make sense, both economically and in terms of real environmental challenges, to argue that the only energy resource Nebraska is unable to produce in abundance — fossil fuels — should be the sole energy resource we rely on?

If we are to discourage Nebraskans from generating their own clean — and virtually free — energy, shouldn’t we be certain that abandoning the pursuit of that free energy resource is a wise thing to do?

Renewables Worth It

So far, I have heard no good arguments against continued expansion of renewable energy resources. Yes, wind and solar require infrastructure (just like oil and gas). Yes, the industry is subsidized (just like oil and gas). Yes, there is environmental impact (just like oil and gas). And yes, there are taxpayer-funded incentives (just like oil and gas).

The worst argument, in my opinion, tries to hobble renewables for being “intermittent.” What do we do at night or when the wind stops blowing? A rooftop solar system can feed extra power back to the grid on a sunny day, then switch to pulling from the grid at night. During a cloudy, windless February, we burn some coal or other fuel to keep the lights on, then reap the March winds and the summer sun.

The answer is, we use them all. But the more renewables we use, the longer “all” energy sources —including finite ones like oil and gas — will be available. How does that not makes sense?

Gregory Wees is former public relations and marketing manager for an Omaha software firm serving the retail energy industry. He is a former Iowa Western Community College adjunct faculty member.

This story was published by Nebraska Examiner, an editorially independent newsroom providing a hard-hitting, daily flow of news. Read the original article: https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/04/10/americans-subsidize-all-energy-sources-not-just-renewable-ones/

Opinions expressed by columnists in The Daily Record are not necessarily those of its management or staff, and do not constitute an endorsement or recommendation. Any errors or omissions should be called to our attention so that they may be corrected. Contact us at news@omahadailyrecord.com.