At the end of 2011, Congress allowed the ethanol subsidies to expire. You might have noticed the little bump in gas prices as the cost trickled down to your tank, but it's hard to hang too much of a partisan spin on the issue, because the subsidy no longer had a great deal of support on either side of the aisle. With years of conflicting reports on the real efficiency of corn-based ethanol, speculation about its impact on food costs, and few real champions, the subsidy dropped off the table without much notice—or much impact outside of the slight increase in gas prices. At the same time the subsidy for US produced ethanol was eliminated, tariffs on imported ethanol were removed. Potentially this could see US corn-based ethanol replaced at least in part by sugarcane ethanol from Brazil. However, current prices would suggest that it will be awhile before there's any significant shift, and with ethanol still making up 10% or more of most gasoline sold in the US, demand is unlikely to be much affected in the short term.

However, the end of 2011 also saw the end of many federal clean energy grants and tax incentives large and small, and on those programs there was a decided split with conservatives blocking every effort to renew the programs. With Solyndra held up as an example, pulling money from items ranging from large solar panel developments, to wind farms, to to attic insulation was celebrated as a small step toward leveling the playing field and stopping government from favoring one industry over another. Most of these subsidies and programs were in the deal that was reached back in August to extend the debt ceiling, and by the time they actually expired they where old news. About the only notice they got in the last month was some mention in ads for 2011 tax software.

Only letting a handful of clean energy programs doesn't exactly put every industry in the same position, not when some were already far more equal than others. According to report from the Organisation for Economic Development not only are oil and gas companies the most profitable companies in history, they're also the beneficiaries of over 250 different forms of government subsidy. It shouldn't be surprising that fossil fuels get this kind of support. Not only are they wealthy and powerful corporations with unmatched ability to lobby for support, they are also old industries. Our economy didn't become fossil fuel heavy overnight. We have more than a century of dependence on these fuels—more than a century in which legislation and regulation supporting these industries has had a chance to spread at the federal, state, and local level. Eighty-five percent of all energy consumption in the United States (including transportation, electricity, and other uses) comes from some form of fossil fuel. That's one of the highest rates in the developed world, and we give it all the help it needs to stay there.

A company out to develop a new oil well will find federal tax breaks for exploration, state and federal lands available at low costs for development, programs to support construction of infrastructure, tax breaks for developing a refinery, and laws around depreciation and write-offs that give their company an edge over other industries, including clean energy. Developing oil shale? There's a tax credit for that. Likewise for "enhanced recovery techniques" otherwise known as fracking. Some of the support is as direct as grants. Others seems obscure, like exempting oil and gas from limits on losses and eliminating sales taxes on the gear used for both exploration and production of oil and gas.

Even when the many state and local grants, credits, subsidies, and abatements are added into the package, it doesn't begin to present the full advantage that fossil fuels have in the marketplace because of one very real physical advantage these fuels possess: they are easily portable and largely fungible. Subsidies awarded elsewhere can have as much impact as those handed out at home.

Meanwhile, additional support for clean energy expires at the end of 2012 and subsidies for fossil fuels continue to increase. While Republicans are lobbying for the Keystone XL pipeline as a potential source of jobs and revenue, they're turning off the spigot for clean energy jobs as fast as they can. And while complaints are raised about uncertainty in the tax code affecting hiring, uncertainty surrounding clean energy is stifling green sources just they're hitting their stride. A lack of support now, with continuing payouts to fossil fuels, is a recipe to erase years of growth in green jobs.

And of course, that's exactly what they have in mind.