I think the question is regarding the "tax breaks" or "subsidies". I'm not certain but I think the arguments are is if oil companies get any different tax breaks than any other corporation. What also seems implied by the earlier WSJ article is that "Renewable" energy is not profitable and the only way for it to survive, at least in the short term, is a different type of subsidy that is not at all analogous to the tax breaks received by Big Oil and other corporations.
My take is that it seems to be a very weak argument to bring Big Oil into the discussion on whether or not Renewable Energy deserves subsidies. If you start that premise then it seems to me like one needs to supply counterpoints to the experience in Europe where renewable energy and subsidies are not fairing well.
