4 ms·

Sounds like money better spent to me than the 5 trillion dollars in global fossil fuel subsidies in 2015, or 500 billion just in the US[1] That 5 billion numbe

Sounds like money better spent to me than the 5 trillion dollars in global fossil fuel subsidies in 2015, or 500 billion just in the US[1] That 5 billion number for Musk I think is a grand total of all subsidies, spanning all time. [1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16304867 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16...

kolbe 10y ago
I don't have to click any like to know that the US did not spend $5t on fossil fuel subsidies. I'm pretty sure the US only spent like $5t total in 2015, and most of that is in medicare and social security.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- gpetukhov 10y ago
  "GLOBAL fossil fuel subsidies"
- adventured 10y ago
  That $5 trillion figure isn't actually spending at all. It's entirely an invented figure, meant to supposedly cover all estimated environment damage for example. Really what it's meant to do, is be massive enough to enable people to throw it around when arguing in favor of obliterating the fossil fuel industry. Why does the invented aspect matter? Because it's comical. It leads to the premise that over just the next 10 years, the subsidies are a likely cumulative ... $56 trillion or so (about 20%-25% of all wealth on earth). Aka, greater than the combined profit of every oil company in world history going back ~140 years.
  - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
    Imagine you ran a small, successful business. Imagine, as part of that business you killed someone every year. Now, we could look at your tax returns and see that you have a successful business. Or we could "invent" some figure to represent the lives you ended. Is it really crazy to imagine that the total we invent would be higher than your yearly, or even total profits? Just scale that up to the point that you're starting wars, causing a crime epidemic with lead poisoning, overheating the planet, etc.
taway_1212 10y ago
The "subsidies" that your link talks about seem to be mostly about externalities. Ignoring for a second that it seems extremely hand-wavey, the biggest "subsidy" is "46%, broader vehicle externalities", which would apply to Tesla as well?

kolbe 10y ago

I don't have to click any like to know that the US did not spend $5t on fossil fuel subsidies. I'm pretty sure the US only spent like $5t total in 2015, and most of that is in medicare and social security.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
gpetukhov 10y ago
"GLOBAL fossil fuel subsidies"
adventured 10y ago
That $5 trillion figure isn't actually spending at all. It's entirely an invented figure, meant to supposedly cover all estimated environment damage for example. Really what it's meant to do, is be massive enough to enable people to throw it around when arguing in favor of obliterating the fossil fuel industry. Why does the invented aspect matter? Because it's comical. It leads to the premise that over just the next 10 years, the subsidies are a likely cumulative ... $56 trillion or so (about 20%-25% of all wealth on earth). Aka, greater than the combined profit of every oil company in world history going back ~140 years.
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago
  Imagine you ran a small, successful business. Imagine, as part of that business you killed someone every year. Now, we could look at your tax returns and see that you have a successful business. Or we could "invent" some figure to represent the lives you ended. Is it really crazy to imagine that the total we invent would be higher than your yearly, or even total profits? Just scale that up to the point that you're starting wars, causing a crime epidemic with lead poisoning, overheating the planet, etc.

taway_1212 10y ago

The "subsidies" that your link talks about seem to be mostly about externalities. Ignoring for a second that it seems extremely hand-wavey, the biggest "subsidy" is "46%, broader vehicle externalities", which would apply to Tesla as well?