3 ms·

If renewables did get trillions in investment this far, a reference would be nice, it wouldn't touch the subsidies fossil fuels receive annually at $5.3tn[0].

by arm85 11y ago

If renewables did get trillions in investment this far, a reference would be nice, it wouldn't touch the subsidies fossil fuels receive annually at $5.3tn[0]. [0] IMF, How Large Are Global Energy Subsidies, 2015, http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42940.0 http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42940.0

maxerickson 11y ago
Accounting for environmental damage is important, but if you calculate the subsidies like that, it isn't just the energy industry that gets subsidized (as would largely be the case with renewables), it's the consumers using the energy (they receive most of such subsidies). So just to be clear: The $5.3 trillion is arrived at by counting untaxed environmental harm as a subsidy. Which I think it is interesting to consider the damage, but I don't think that is what people are going to think when they think energy subsidy.
- arm85 11y ago
  I think my point still stands in response to his argument, if you ignore post-tax subsidies. The pre-tax sum is $333bn in 2015 and $541bn in 2013. So would easily accumulate to trillions over a short number of years. But I do think post-tax subsidies is a fair metric, for example, in places where there's state health care, my tax is being spent to care for people whose health has been affected by fossil fuels. So it seems like state subsidised to me.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    My primary interest was pointing out how the number was calculated, I'm not real worried about characterizing it.
- makomk 11y ago
  No, this really is a subsidy to the fossil fuel industry: the amount they pay to obtain fossil fuels is less than the actual cost, which means they can sell them for prices which would be unprofitable if they paid for the environmental costs and for applications where they'd otherwise be replaced by other more environmentally-friendly options. The consumers definitely aren't the ones who are being subsidised here - they don't care where their energy is coming from, so the actual consumer benefit is only the difference between the cost of fossil fuels and the cost of the cheapest option if fossil fuel producers had to pay the full environmental price, minus the environmental harms to the consumers. (Which may well actually not be a net benefit to consumers at all.)
  - webXL 11y ago
    But consumers would have either had to pay extra for that $5.3 trillion expense, or not use as much energy. Figuring out where the blame should be placed is a bit of chicken and egg, but we're trying to point out that bandying questionable numbers around like this isn't helping the cause.

by arm85 11y ago

maxerickson 11y ago

Accounting for environmental damage is important, but if you calculate the subsidies like that, it isn't just the energy industry that gets subsidized (as would largely be the case with renewables), it's the consumers using the energy (they receive most of such subsidies). So just to be clear: The $5.3 trillion is arrived at by counting untaxed environmental harm as a subsidy. Which I think it is interesting to consider the damage, but I don't think that is what people are going to think when they think energy subsidy.

arm85 11y ago
I think my point still stands in response to his argument, if you ignore post-tax subsidies. The pre-tax sum is $333bn in 2015 and $541bn in 2013. So would easily accumulate to trillions over a short number of years. But I do think post-tax subsidies is a fair metric, for example, in places where there's state health care, my tax is being spent to care for people whose health has been affected by fossil fuels. So it seems like state subsidised to me.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  My primary interest was pointing out how the number was calculated, I'm not real worried about characterizing it.
makomk 11y ago
No, this really is a subsidy to the fossil fuel industry: the amount they pay to obtain fossil fuels is less than the actual cost, which means they can sell them for prices which would be unprofitable if they paid for the environmental costs and for applications where they'd otherwise be replaced by other more environmentally-friendly options. The consumers definitely aren't the ones who are being subsidised here - they don't care where their energy is coming from, so the actual consumer benefit is only the difference between the cost of fossil fuels and the cost of the cheapest option if fossil fuel producers had to pay the full environmental price, minus the environmental harms to the consumers. (Which may well actually not be a net benefit to consumers at all.)
- webXL 11y ago
  But consumers would have either had to pay extra for that $5.3 trillion expense, or not use as much energy. Figuring out where the blame should be placed is a bit of chicken and egg, but we're trying to point out that bandying questionable numbers around like this isn't helping the cause.