4 ms·

Utilities certainly will build a coal plant when coal subsidies are over 3% of global GDP. That's a huge figure, and hardly capitalist. https://www.sciencedire

Utilities certainly will build a coal plant when coal subsidies are over 3% of global GDP. That's a huge figure, and hardly capitalist. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16304867?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X1...

rb808 9y ago
You can see a copy of the report here: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15105.pdf https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15105.pdf It isn't a direct subsidy. They're saying pollution from coal has external costs and there isn't a tax on the coal-burning polluters to pay for this, so in effect coal has a subsidy. I guess it has a point but I think calling that subsidy is misleading.
- cromulent 9y ago
  Sure, the term might not be the most appropriate one, but if we are talking about choosing the most effective use of capital to create energy, and one method has negative externalities that are shared by the whole world but are not taxed, and one method does not, then it's much harder for solar to be an attractive option. The market is skewed.
- danans 9y ago
  Subsidy just implies that someone other than the coal industry is paying for a cost that the industry imposes. The only time the term subsidy didn't make sense was when we didn't know that these externalities existed. But the moment the costs were clear, not assessing them on the coal industry became a subsidy.
  - rb808 9y ago
    Agreed. Its interesting too the external costs of not using coal. EG shutting down mines causes a lot of economic hardship in some regions of the US. Is that a subsidy for gas/solar/nuclear?
    - rz2k 9y ago
      No. You also do not have standing to sue a company for decreasing the resale value of your property by releasing a new model. There absolutely can be social utility in remedying structural unemployment, but we are not in an economic system where people have a right to wages for work that is not valuable.
  - wang_li 9y ago
    Subsidy suggests someone giving you money, as opposed to not taking your money. These are not the same thing at the margins.
    - danans 9y ago
      It's a subclass of subsidy known as an "implicit subsidy": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy#Environmental_externalities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy#Environmental_external...
      - roenxi 9y ago
        There are assumptions in calling that a subsidy, I identified these two that I have issues with: 1) The net externalities are measurably negative 2) The coal producers should be paying them There are clear and massive positive externalities to fossil fuel, and anyone arguing otherwise needs to take a deep breath. They are the foundation of modern civilisation, and we all get non-economic benefits from the era of unprecedented peace and prosperity that we live in. If we price in all the externalities, fossil fuels probably do deserve a subsidy. The renewables debate is about whether we have an alternative that is better than the historically magical substances we call fossil fuels. Since it has a higher EROEI than solar, if we are going to start pricing in externalities I would be comfortable arguing fossil fuels deserves a higher subsidy than solar for positive externalities. I don't think that is sensible, but neither do I accept that there is an 'implicit subsidy'. The 2nd assumption is a political question that afaik has been answered in the negative. It doesn't make sense to claim that they 'have a subsidy' when the system we use to determine if they should be paying for an externality (currently) accepts that they do not have to.
        danans 9y ago
        > They are the foundation of modern civilisation This sounds like sentimentality. We've found better ways that costs less and have fewer externalized costs. Consistent electricity at the point of use is indifferentiable as to its source. It matters little if coal got us to this point if other technologies can provide cheaper energy in less environmentally harmful ways going forward. > and we all get non-economic benefits from the era of unprecedented peace and prosperity that we live in Prosperity is not at risk with the implementation of renewables and storage. The removal of the health costs of coal-generated air pollution will increase quality of life. > unprecedented peace What exactly does coal uniquely offer in terms of supporting peace vs other sources? Also, you are conflating coal with all other fossil fuels when it suits your argument. They are not all the same. Natural gas will continue to have use as a heating fuel for a long time, but the same can't be said of coal. It doesn't have a significant use today beyond producing electricity. What is at risk are jobs in the already long-declining coal extraction, transport, and combustion industries, and the people in the regions that are dependent on those industries should be helped transition in the near term.
- andrewjl 9y ago
  It is a subsidy under our legal system if the industry / plant / miner causes a tort and it's not remedied. That's money going out of one persons pockets into another.
spullara 9y ago
With a very broad definition of subsidy. By this definition roads are subsidy for cars (turns out, Greenpeace agrees with this one! https://www.thebalance.com/government-subsidies-definition-farm-oil-export-etc-3305788 https://www.thebalance.com/government-subsidies-definition-f...) "Undercharging for global warming accounts for 22% of the subsidy in 2013, air pollution 46%, broader vehicle externalities 13%, supply costs 11%, and general consumer taxes 8%."
- cromulent 9y ago
  Call the negative externality costs whatever you like, but the coal industry doesn't pay it, which makes it seem cheap compared to solar. Which is why this article is news.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- notatoad 9y ago
  how can you possibly say roads are not subsidized for cars? if i wanted to build a railway, and the government built the track for me wouldn't that be a subsidy? just because the government normally pays for it, doesn't make it somehow not a subsidy.

rb808 9y ago

You can see a copy of the report here: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15105.pdf https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15105.pdf It isn't a direct subsidy. They're saying pollution from coal has external costs and there isn't a tax on the coal-burning polluters to pay for this, so in effect coal has a subsidy. I guess it has a point but I think calling that subsidy is misleading.

cromulent 9y ago
Sure, the term might not be the most appropriate one, but if we are talking about choosing the most effective use of capital to create energy, and one method has negative externalities that are shared by the whole world but are not taxed, and one method does not, then it's much harder for solar to be an attractive option. The market is skewed.
danans 9y ago
Subsidy just implies that someone other than the coal industry is paying for a cost that the industry imposes. The only time the term subsidy didn't make sense was when we didn't know that these externalities existed. But the moment the costs were clear, not assessing them on the coal industry became a subsidy.
- rb808 9y ago
  Agreed. Its interesting too the external costs of not using coal. EG shutting down mines causes a lot of economic hardship in some regions of the US. Is that a subsidy for gas/solar/nuclear?
  - rz2k 9y ago
    No. You also do not have standing to sue a company for decreasing the resale value of your property by releasing a new model. There absolutely can be social utility in remedying structural unemployment, but we are not in an economic system where people have a right to wages for work that is not valuable.
- wang_li 9y ago
  Subsidy suggests someone giving you money, as opposed to not taking your money. These are not the same thing at the margins.
  - danans 9y ago
    It's a subclass of subsidy known as an "implicit subsidy": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy#Environmental_externalities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy#Environmental_external...
    - roenxi 9y ago
      There are assumptions in calling that a subsidy, I identified these two that I have issues with: 1) The net externalities are measurably negative 2) The coal producers should be paying them There are clear and massive positive externalities to fossil fuel, and anyone arguing otherwise needs to take a deep breath. They are the foundation of modern civilisation, and we all get non-economic benefits from the era of unprecedented peace and prosperity that we live in. If we price in all the externalities, fossil fuels probably do deserve a subsidy. The renewables debate is about whether we have an alternative that is better than the historically magical substances we call fossil fuels. Since it has a higher EROEI than solar, if we are going to start pricing in externalities I would be comfortable arguing fossil fuels deserves a higher subsidy than solar for positive externalities. I don't think that is sensible, but neither do I accept that there is an 'implicit subsidy'. The 2nd assumption is a political question that afaik has been answered in the negative. It doesn't make sense to claim that they 'have a subsidy' when the system we use to determine if they should be paying for an externality (currently) accepts that they do not have to.
      - danans 9y ago
        > They are the foundation of modern civilisation This sounds like sentimentality. We've found better ways that costs less and have fewer externalized costs. Consistent electricity at the point of use is indifferentiable as to its source. It matters little if coal got us to this point if other technologies can provide cheaper energy in less environmentally harmful ways going forward. > and we all get non-economic benefits from the era of unprecedented peace and prosperity that we live in Prosperity is not at risk with the implementation of renewables and storage. The removal of the health costs of coal-generated air pollution will increase quality of life. > unprecedented peace What exactly does coal uniquely offer in terms of supporting peace vs other sources? Also, you are conflating coal with all other fossil fuels when it suits your argument. They are not all the same. Natural gas will continue to have use as a heating fuel for a long time, but the same can't be said of coal. It doesn't have a significant use today beyond producing electricity. What is at risk are jobs in the already long-declining coal extraction, transport, and combustion industries, and the people in the regions that are dependent on those industries should be helped transition in the near term.
andrewjl 9y ago
It is a subsidy under our legal system if the industry / plant / miner causes a tort and it's not remedied. That's money going out of one persons pockets into another.

spullara 9y ago

With a very broad definition of subsidy. By this definition roads are subsidy for cars (turns out, Greenpeace agrees with this one! https://www.thebalance.com/government-subsidies-definition-farm-oil-export-etc-3305788 https://www.thebalance.com/government-subsidies-definition-f...) "Undercharging for global warming accounts for 22% of the subsidy in 2013, air pollution 46%, broader vehicle externalities 13%, supply costs 11%, and general consumer taxes 8%."

cromulent 9y ago
Call the negative externality costs whatever you like, but the coal industry doesn't pay it, which makes it seem cheap compared to solar. Which is why this article is news.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
notatoad 9y ago
how can you possibly say roads are not subsidized for cars? if i wanted to build a railway, and the government built the track for me wouldn't that be a subsidy? just because the government normally pays for it, doesn't make it somehow not a subsidy.