5 ms·

Globally, conventional fossil fuels receive greater subsidies (nominally, not $/MWh) than renewable power. Estimated to be up to $6 trillion when considering i

by ghouse 8y ago

Globally, conventional fossil fuels receive greater subsidies (nominally, not $/MWh) than renewable power. Estimated to be up to $6 trillion when considering indirect subsidies [1] and $260 billion when only considering direct cash subsidies [2]. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16304867 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X1... [2] https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2017/december/commentary-fossil-fuel-consumption-subsidies-are-down-but-not-out.html https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2017/december/commentary-f...

mikeash 8y ago
Coal alone kills a million people a year worldwide. If we take the EPA's value of a statistical life of about $10 million, that's effectively $10 trillion in subsidies just for coal deaths. We don't typically consider being allowed to pollute to be a subsidy, but we really should.
- travisoneill1 8y ago
  $10 million per person fails the sniff test Global GDP per capita: $17,300 Global life expectancy: 72 72 * 17300 = $1,245,600 upper bound
  - mikeash 8y ago
    Sure, that’s the “if.” Although even the monetary value of a life is probably more than just the economic contribution.
- briandear 8y ago
  What are migratory birds worth? Are endangered birds worth a bonus? Wind-turbine-related bird deaths approach 57 million per year. https://abcbirds.org/wind-energy-threatens-birds/ https://abcbirds.org/wind-energy-threatens-birds/
  - mikeash 8y ago
    It’s not like fossil fuel pollution is benign to wildlife. Does it really make sense to call bird deaths from power lines “wind turbine related” just because those power lines serve wind turbines? You’d still need them if you used another source of energy.
- marcoperaza 8y ago
  How many people die because of insufficient access to medicine caused in part by lack of infrastructure like reliable power? How many dollars spent on the additional cost of clean power could instead go to things that would improve people’s health, be it health care or something more indirect (like healthier food, better sanitation, or even vacations)? Quantifying all externalities is a questionable endeavor.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
travisoneill1 8y ago
I can't take this too seriously because most of the subsidies they talk about are actually externalities for which cost estimates are extremely imprecise. This is a real thing, but lumping them together with actual subsidies feels misleading. Also not sure why a nominal comparison is meaningful. The actual impact in terms of resource allocation will be due to $/MWh.

by ghouse 8y ago

mikeash 8y ago

Coal alone kills a million people a year worldwide. If we take the EPA's value of a statistical life of about $10 million, that's effectively $10 trillion in subsidies just for coal deaths. We don't typically consider being allowed to pollute to be a subsidy, but we really should.

travisoneill1 8y ago
$10 million per person fails the sniff test Global GDP per capita: $17,300 Global life expectancy: 72 72 * 17300 = $1,245,600 upper bound
- mikeash 8y ago
  Sure, that’s the “if.” Although even the monetary value of a life is probably more than just the economic contribution.
briandear 8y ago
What are migratory birds worth? Are endangered birds worth a bonus? Wind-turbine-related bird deaths approach 57 million per year. https://abcbirds.org/wind-energy-threatens-birds/ https://abcbirds.org/wind-energy-threatens-birds/
- mikeash 8y ago
  It’s not like fossil fuel pollution is benign to wildlife. Does it really make sense to call bird deaths from power lines “wind turbine related” just because those power lines serve wind turbines? You’d still need them if you used another source of energy.
marcoperaza 8y ago
How many people die because of insufficient access to medicine caused in part by lack of infrastructure like reliable power? How many dollars spent on the additional cost of clean power could instead go to things that would improve people’s health, be it health care or something more indirect (like healthier food, better sanitation, or even vacations)? Quantifying all externalities is a questionable endeavor.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

travisoneill1 8y ago

I can't take this too seriously because most of the subsidies they talk about are actually externalities for which cost estimates are extremely imprecise. This is a real thing, but lumping them together with actual subsidies feels misleading. Also not sure why a nominal comparison is meaningful. The actual impact in terms of resource allocation will be due to $/MWh.