> Buying coal has a global impact; ending US subsidies doesn't (in fact, it would make it cheaper to burn elsewhere). I'm not sure how you came to the conclusi

> Buying coal has a global impact; ending US subsidies doesn't (in fact, it would make it cheaper to burn elsewhere). I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that 17% is insignificant. Yes, coal prices elsewhere would go down, but at the very worst case that would mean that demand for goal rises to match previous prices: at the very worst coal usage stays the same. And if even 5 of those 17 percentage points end up not getting burned, that's still pretty significant. Meanwhile, the US is where a large portion of the research into renewable energies occurs. If subsidies to fossil fuels were redirected to renewable energies, the research that would result would have global effects. So ending US subsidies absolutely does have global impact.