5 ms·

Richest nations fail to agree on deadline to phase out fossil fuel subsidies

marcusgarvey 10y ago
>A promise to cut subsidies was first made at a G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh in 2009, but since then very little progress has been made So seven years and counting. >[U.S. Secretary of Energy] Moniz said the United States would eventually need legislative action in Congress to reach longer-term emissions goals, but he said that he believed public pressure for Congress to act would mount as sea levels rise and “Mother Nature’s voice” continues to get louder. Translation: Nothing will be done until things take an unambiguously disastrous turn -- if then. How reassuring.
- adrenalinelol 10y ago
  Any country that is facing economic stagnation (most of the developed world) is going to be hard pressed to inflict short-term pain for long-term gain.
  - marcusgarvey 10y ago
    I can think of at least two scenarios where that doesn't quite hold: in times of war and also in times when austerity-espousing politicians "have" to make budget cuts and focus those cuts on social welfare programs. Then comes all the flowery language in support of "shared sacrifice" for the greater good. Then, they are usually able to make very persuasive arguments for inflicting short-term pain. One would think these same politicians could use their rhetorical power to help avoid cataclysmic climate change.
toomuchtodo 10y ago
What can be done to apply pressure on these countries to speed up the phase out of fossil fuel subsidies? Replace representatives in their respective legislative branches?
- afarrell 10y ago
  This will be difficult for those with democratic governments. Houston is America's 4th largest city and its economy is pretty strongly tied to the industry. Many other locations around the US have economies tied to the extraction and processing of coal and oil. Any meaningful legislation to reduction in the use of fossil fuels is going to severely hurt those industries, causing massive unemployment. Barring some sort of massive action to counteract the resulting economic deprivation, poverty will rise and bring with it a rise in crime and suicides. Those suicides are ultimately worth it, but it will be difficult. Research into the tactics used by the UK's Thatcher government to push through their reduction in subsidies to the coal industry would probably be instructive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners%27_strike_(1984%E2%80%9385) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners%27_strike_(1984%E2%8...
  - a_small_island 10y ago
    >"Those suicides are ultimately worth it, but it will be difficult" -afarrell Source?
    - afarrell 10y ago
      This is a conclusion drawn based on 1) A genuine belief that we do need to massively reduce fossil fuel extraction. 2) seeing what often happens to areas when their main industries close or move away (see: South Yorkshire, England or Detroit, Michigan) Yes, I'm being deliberately inflammatory here. The people I've talked to about climate change post things like this: http://imgur.com/up6yu http://imgur.com/up6yu and ignore the fact that we are genuinely and earnestly pushing for policies that will destroy people's livelihoods.
      - toomuchtodo 10y ago
        > Yes, I'm being deliberately inflammatory here. The people I've talked to about climate change post things like this: http://imgur.com/up6yu http://imgur.com/up6yu and ignore the fact that we are genuinely and earnestly pushing for policies that will destroy people's livelihoods. This is a policy issue, not an energy issue. There is no reason we cannot support those people who can no longer work in industries we must remove support for due to environmental concerns.
tomp 10y ago
> Saudi Arabia has been the major blocker of a deal at the G-20 Well, who would have thought... But seriously, why do we (or rather, G-19) even listen to them? Why can't we just cut the subsidies ourselves, have investments in renewables grow and watch SA slowly drown it its oil?
- Donald 10y ago
  Because Saudi Arabia, with its massive supply and low costs of production, wields massive influence over the price of oil. And, as we've seen recently, are very willing to defend its market share against long-term (clean energy) and immediate threats (such as fracking.)
  - JBReefer 10y ago
    Does this make Saudi the bad guys?
    - mcv 10y ago
      Only because of this? Or also because they're a very oppressive theocracy that pushes an extremist version of Islam on other countries, whole some members of the royal family may be funding terrorism? It's really questionable why Iran is seen as bad guys while Saudi Arabia is not. Saudi Arabia is many times worse than Iran.
- adrenalinelol 10y ago
  Because the G-20 wants to remain the G-20 and not the G-19; you can't kick out a member every time you don't agree with their opinion, regardless of who wrong you may feel it is.
  - beambot 10y ago
    Why not? Aren't these types of alliances fluid and opportunistic?
    - 10y ago
afarrell 10y ago
Given the belief that we need to leave fossil fuels in the ground and close mining operations, shouldn't that change the left's opinion of Margret Thatcher? (Or at least of the mine closures)
- adrenalinelol 10y ago
  She was also a champion of financial de-regulation which culminated in the crash of 2008 which large swathes of the population have yet to recover from (underemployment, retirement-funds, etc...).
Pica_soO 10y ago
Free market willz it!
ramonvillasante 10y ago
It’s too big markets and subsidies "Citing data from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Musk lamented he’s “competing against something that has a $6 trillion per year subsidy,” and that the low gas prices that subsidies create are “weakening the economic-forcing function to sustainable transport and clean energy in general.” Source: http://ecowatch.com/2016/05/05/elon-musk-fossil-fuels/ http://ecowatch.com/2016/05/05/elon-musk-fossil-fuels/ At the global scale we have a big mistake since decades. Fixing it is going to be the most difficult challenge ever to date. But I’m optimistic in the accelerated speed of change in tech-science, market, prices, policies and social awareness even with the fact the we are now far from the right path to achieve it. We need a very holistic transtion to save people and planet from climate change and pollution dramatic impacts. Including re educating society towards sustainability. This includes helping to transform skills of people and professionals from traditional unsustainable industries and societies to sustainable ones. This requires action from private, public and nonprofit sectors and people, to cope with the speed of the change needed according to majoritarian scientific consensus.
Lazare 10y ago
The headline is very misleading. 1. This was a meeting of the G20; it's LARGE nations, not RICH nations. 2. Poor nations are responsible for the overwhelming majority of fossil fuel subsidies. The worst offenders are China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, and Mexico. Someone else noted that Saudi Arabia was a major blocker of an agreement to cut subsidies, and someone asked why "we" (ie, the US/Europe) don't just ignore them and go ahead and cut subsidies ourselves. The answer is because Saudi Arabia is the one doing the subsidising; only they can cut their own subsidies. 3. What subsidies rich countries do provide tend to be highly contentious, and depending on how you measure them are either small or non-existent. A poor country might sell petrol and heating oil for a fraction of its cost of production, which is an obvious subsidy to the oil and gas industry. For, eg, the US, most if its "subsidy" is stuff like IRS rules that say that a petroleum company can count most of a fine for an oil spill as a business expense. Should a fine be classified as a business expense? If you think it shouldn't be, the fact that the IRS (partially) disagrees represents a small subsidy. Then again, a lot of fines do get counted as expenses, and the US is hardly alone in having rules like that. Similarly, a lot of coal is mined in the Powder Basin Region, which is not designated as a coal producing region. Under US law, land in coal producing regions is subject to slightly higher leases than land outside them, which means the coal companies who lease land in the Powder Basin are paying slightly less than they "should" be paying. Or alternatively, coal companies who lease land in other coal regions are paying slightly more. Or maybe coal companies should pay whatever the law specifies; it's not like there's any global standard on what the right cost should for leasing coal reserves. But if you think that the US has magically set the perfect price for coal producing regions, AND that the Powder Basin Region should totally be designated a coal producing region, then sure, that's a small subsidy for the companies who lease land in the Powder Basin. And so on. In short, better headline: Poor oil producers say "no thanks" to suggestions from rich countries that they should cut their subsidies for domestic consumption.
roflchoppa 10y ago
It's going to be interesting to see the effects on manufacturing, esp with the bits and pieces of things that are made with oil.

>A promise to cut subsidies was first made at a G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh in 2009, but since then very little progress has been made So seven years and counting. >[U.S. Secretary of Energy] Moniz said the United States would eventually need legislative action in Congress to reach longer-term emissions goals, but he said that he believed public pressure for Congress to act would mount as sea levels rise and “Mother Nature’s voice” continues to get louder. Translation: Nothing will be done until things take an unambiguously disastrous turn -- if then. How reassuring.

adrenalinelol 10y ago
Any country that is facing economic stagnation (most of the developed world) is going to be hard pressed to inflict short-term pain for long-term gain.
- marcusgarvey 10y ago
  I can think of at least two scenarios where that doesn't quite hold: in times of war and also in times when austerity-espousing politicians "have" to make budget cuts and focus those cuts on social welfare programs. Then comes all the flowery language in support of "shared sacrifice" for the greater good. Then, they are usually able to make very persuasive arguments for inflicting short-term pain. One would think these same politicians could use their rhetorical power to help avoid cataclysmic climate change.

toomuchtodo 10y ago

What can be done to apply pressure on these countries to speed up the phase out of fossil fuel subsidies? Replace representatives in their respective legislative branches?

afarrell 10y ago
This will be difficult for those with democratic governments. Houston is America's 4th largest city and its economy is pretty strongly tied to the industry. Many other locations around the US have economies tied to the extraction and processing of coal and oil. Any meaningful legislation to reduction in the use of fossil fuels is going to severely hurt those industries, causing massive unemployment. Barring some sort of massive action to counteract the resulting economic deprivation, poverty will rise and bring with it a rise in crime and suicides. Those suicides are ultimately worth it, but it will be difficult. Research into the tactics used by the UK's Thatcher government to push through their reduction in subsidies to the coal industry would probably be instructive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners%27_strike_(1984%E2%80%9385) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners%27_strike_(1984%E2%8...
- a_small_island 10y ago
  >"Those suicides are ultimately worth it, but it will be difficult" -afarrell Source?
  - afarrell 10y ago
    This is a conclusion drawn based on 1) A genuine belief that we do need to massively reduce fossil fuel extraction. 2) seeing what often happens to areas when their main industries close or move away (see: South Yorkshire, England or Detroit, Michigan) Yes, I'm being deliberately inflammatory here. The people I've talked to about climate change post things like this: http://imgur.com/up6yu http://imgur.com/up6yu and ignore the fact that we are genuinely and earnestly pushing for policies that will destroy people's livelihoods.
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      > Yes, I'm being deliberately inflammatory here. The people I've talked to about climate change post things like this: http://imgur.com/up6yu http://imgur.com/up6yu and ignore the fact that we are genuinely and earnestly pushing for policies that will destroy people's livelihoods. This is a policy issue, not an energy issue. There is no reason we cannot support those people who can no longer work in industries we must remove support for due to environmental concerns.

tomp 10y ago

> Saudi Arabia has been the major blocker of a deal at the G-20 Well, who would have thought... But seriously, why do we (or rather, G-19) even listen to them? Why can't we just cut the subsidies ourselves, have investments in renewables grow and watch SA slowly drown it its oil?

Donald 10y ago
Because Saudi Arabia, with its massive supply and low costs of production, wields massive influence over the price of oil. And, as we've seen recently, are very willing to defend its market share against long-term (clean energy) and immediate threats (such as fracking.)
- JBReefer 10y ago
  Does this make Saudi the bad guys?
  - mcv 10y ago
    Only because of this? Or also because they're a very oppressive theocracy that pushes an extremist version of Islam on other countries, whole some members of the royal family may be funding terrorism? It's really questionable why Iran is seen as bad guys while Saudi Arabia is not. Saudi Arabia is many times worse than Iran.
adrenalinelol 10y ago
Because the G-20 wants to remain the G-20 and not the G-19; you can't kick out a member every time you don't agree with their opinion, regardless of who wrong you may feel it is.
- beambot 10y ago
  Why not? Aren't these types of alliances fluid and opportunistic?
  - 10y ago

afarrell 10y ago

Given the belief that we need to leave fossil fuels in the ground and close mining operations, shouldn't that change the left's opinion of Margret Thatcher? (Or at least of the mine closures)

adrenalinelol 10y ago
She was also a champion of financial de-regulation which culminated in the crash of 2008 which large swathes of the population have yet to recover from (underemployment, retirement-funds, etc...).

Pica_soO 10y ago

Free market willz it!

ramonvillasante 10y ago

It’s too big markets and subsidies "Citing data from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Musk lamented he’s “competing against something that has a $6 trillion per year subsidy,” and that the low gas prices that subsidies create are “weakening the economic-forcing function to sustainable transport and clean energy in general.” Source: http://ecowatch.com/2016/05/05/elon-musk-fossil-fuels/ http://ecowatch.com/2016/05/05/elon-musk-fossil-fuels/ At the global scale we have a big mistake since decades. Fixing it is going to be the most difficult challenge ever to date. But I’m optimistic in the accelerated speed of change in tech-science, market, prices, policies and social awareness even with the fact the we are now far from the right path to achieve it. We need a very holistic transtion to save people and planet from climate change and pollution dramatic impacts. Including re educating society towards sustainability. This includes helping to transform skills of people and professionals from traditional unsustainable industries and societies to sustainable ones. This requires action from private, public and nonprofit sectors and people, to cope with the speed of the change needed according to majoritarian scientific consensus.

Lazare 10y ago

The headline is very misleading. 1. This was a meeting of the G20; it's LARGE nations, not RICH nations. 2. Poor nations are responsible for the overwhelming majority of fossil fuel subsidies. The worst offenders are China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, and Mexico. Someone else noted that Saudi Arabia was a major blocker of an agreement to cut subsidies, and someone asked why "we" (ie, the US/Europe) don't just ignore them and go ahead and cut subsidies ourselves. The answer is because Saudi Arabia is the one doing the subsidising; only they can cut their own subsidies. 3. What subsidies rich countries do provide tend to be highly contentious, and depending on how you measure them are either small or non-existent. A poor country might sell petrol and heating oil for a fraction of its cost of production, which is an obvious subsidy to the oil and gas industry. For, eg, the US, most if its "subsidy" is stuff like IRS rules that say that a petroleum company can count most of a fine for an oil spill as a business expense. Should a fine be classified as a business expense? If you think it shouldn't be, the fact that the IRS (partially) disagrees represents a small subsidy. Then again, a lot of fines do get counted as expenses, and the US is hardly alone in having rules like that. Similarly, a lot of coal is mined in the Powder Basin Region, which is not designated as a coal producing region. Under US law, land in coal producing regions is subject to slightly higher leases than land outside them, which means the coal companies who lease land in the Powder Basin are paying slightly less than they "should" be paying. Or alternatively, coal companies who lease land in other coal regions are paying slightly more. Or maybe coal companies should pay whatever the law specifies; it's not like there's any global standard on what the right cost should for leasing coal reserves. But if you think that the US has magically set the perfect price for coal producing regions, AND that the Powder Basin Region should totally be designated a coal producing region, then sure, that's a small subsidy for the companies who lease land in the Powder Basin. And so on. In short, better headline: Poor oil producers say "no thanks" to suggestions from rich countries that they should cut their subsidies for domestic consumption.

roflchoppa 10y ago

It's going to be interesting to see the effects on manufacturing, esp with the bits and pieces of things that are made with oil.