5 ms·

> If you make it so that wind, solar, and next generation nuclear power is cheaper than other alternatives and more desirable, the market will progressively swi

> If you make it so that wind, solar, and next generation nuclear power is cheaper than other alternatives and more desirable, the market will progressively switch. Not necessarily. Lots of people have jobs in coal, oil and gas production, and those constituencies will often vote for politicians who promise to keep those jobs around. They can do this through heavily subsidizing the cost of fossil fuels (which they currently do) in order to reduce the extent to which the economic benefits of clean energy can influence the market. In the long term, they probably can't keep this up, but we don't really have a "long term" anymore.

ekianjo 7y ago
The cost of "unions protecting their job" increases further as the alternatives get cheaper over time. So it's not sustainable in any way. Additionally, fossil fuels are usually subsidized the most in local areas where they are mined/extracted so states/regions with no such natural resources can be expected to move way faster in adopting new forms of energy production.
- rangersanger 7y ago
  While the UMWA certainly has a vested interested in keeping coal mining jobs around, blaming unions for protectionism here is a little far down the value chain.
imtringued 7y ago
If you divide the total subsidies aluminum smelters in Germany receive by the number of jobs then you get 440,000€ of subsidies per job per year, the workers themselves only see a fraction of that. Unsustainability has never stopped politicians from doing stupid things.
- ianai 7y ago
  I’d rather employ people to sit around (or not) and study/do whatever productive thing they want than enforce otherwise not needed work.
  - mrmuagi 7y ago
    Not needed work is kind of already dis-incentivezed -- if its not needed, generally there is less market demand for it, but it behoves me to ignore all the exceptions propped up by cultural events and/or clever and insidious marketing like MLM. Funny you mention study, because that's what people do in university and college, but in America they get a fat student loan when they graduate... But how does that relate to a 440,000€/job/year subsidy? On paper it seems wasteful but I'm no expert in the economics of propping up the aluminium industry in Germany. Maybe it's a strategic move for national defence.
burfog 7y ago
We don't really subsidize fossil fuels. I thought that your comment was interesting, so I looked it up. These "subsidies" are just completely normal stuff that ordinary American businesses get. Mostly it is tax deductions. Everybody is getting tax deductions. Everybody from your local hair salon to Microsoft is taking tax deductions. For the fuel companies this includes income tax, fees for shipping, and royalties for extracting the resources. The only really offensive one is a deduction for BP's punishment, which sort of undoes the punishment... though that is fair if the tobacco companies got to do likewise for their punishment. The rest is just the unpaid share of the cost of running various government agencies. First of all this isn't generally something the companies feel they benefit from; ditching OSHA/EPA/etc. would probably please them. Second of all, again it is something we do for all American businesses. As with any other American businesses, wind and solar providers get the subsidies. They also get special environmental subsidies, which are huge. I think this dispute started because the abnormal subsidies being provided to wind/solar providers have become a political issue. The wind/solar providers respond by pushing the narrative that fossil fuels get subsidies, but that just isn't a reasonable conclusion. The supposed subsidies are just normal things provided to American businesses, unlike what wind and solar are getting.
- awinder 7y ago
  The federal coal leasing program has been a frequent target for overpricing coal with some estimates at around a billion a year in benefit. There's also things like opening new areas for drilling in areas that are only profitable when subsidized (and then the subsidies come in), which is not a normal tax policy arrangement, at least not the kind your hairdresser has with the federal government.
- mceachen 7y ago
  Perhaps this could be dismissed as semantics, but saying that we don't subsidize fossil fuels seems to not jibe with the reality that the only countries that have lower gasoline prices in world are countries whose economies are predominantly fossil-fuel based. See https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/gas-prices/#20184:United-States:USD:g https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/gas-prices/#20184:United-... If the US gasoline costs were even close to EU levels, (say, 2x what we pay), there'd be an inversion in household energy consumption economics (and it'd be the difference between 2% and 5% of household incomes). EVs wouldn't be just for tree-huggers. Buying from 100% clean electrical sources might be cheaper than "standard" sources.
triplee 7y ago
This is very true. I live in the DC area and the number of ridiculous "clean coal" ads plastered all over public transit and TV/radio here is insane. Lobbyists will be the death of us all.

ekianjo 7y ago

The cost of "unions protecting their job" increases further as the alternatives get cheaper over time. So it's not sustainable in any way. Additionally, fossil fuels are usually subsidized the most in local areas where they are mined/extracted so states/regions with no such natural resources can be expected to move way faster in adopting new forms of energy production.

rangersanger 7y ago
While the UMWA certainly has a vested interested in keeping coal mining jobs around, blaming unions for protectionism here is a little far down the value chain.

imtringued 7y ago

If you divide the total subsidies aluminum smelters in Germany receive by the number of jobs then you get 440,000€ of subsidies per job per year, the workers themselves only see a fraction of that. Unsustainability has never stopped politicians from doing stupid things.

ianai 7y ago
I’d rather employ people to sit around (or not) and study/do whatever productive thing they want than enforce otherwise not needed work.
- mrmuagi 7y ago
  Not needed work is kind of already dis-incentivezed -- if its not needed, generally there is less market demand for it, but it behoves me to ignore all the exceptions propped up by cultural events and/or clever and insidious marketing like MLM. Funny you mention study, because that's what people do in university and college, but in America they get a fat student loan when they graduate... But how does that relate to a 440,000€/job/year subsidy? On paper it seems wasteful but I'm no expert in the economics of propping up the aluminium industry in Germany. Maybe it's a strategic move for national defence.

burfog 7y ago

We don't really subsidize fossil fuels. I thought that your comment was interesting, so I looked it up. These "subsidies" are just completely normal stuff that ordinary American businesses get. Mostly it is tax deductions. Everybody is getting tax deductions. Everybody from your local hair salon to Microsoft is taking tax deductions. For the fuel companies this includes income tax, fees for shipping, and royalties for extracting the resources. The only really offensive one is a deduction for BP's punishment, which sort of undoes the punishment... though that is fair if the tobacco companies got to do likewise for their punishment. The rest is just the unpaid share of the cost of running various government agencies. First of all this isn't generally something the companies feel they benefit from; ditching OSHA/EPA/etc. would probably please them. Second of all, again it is something we do for all American businesses. As with any other American businesses, wind and solar providers get the subsidies. They also get special environmental subsidies, which are huge. I think this dispute started because the abnormal subsidies being provided to wind/solar providers have become a political issue. The wind/solar providers respond by pushing the narrative that fossil fuels get subsidies, but that just isn't a reasonable conclusion. The supposed subsidies are just normal things provided to American businesses, unlike what wind and solar are getting.

awinder 7y ago
The federal coal leasing program has been a frequent target for overpricing coal with some estimates at around a billion a year in benefit. There's also things like opening new areas for drilling in areas that are only profitable when subsidized (and then the subsidies come in), which is not a normal tax policy arrangement, at least not the kind your hairdresser has with the federal government.
mceachen 7y ago
Perhaps this could be dismissed as semantics, but saying that we don't subsidize fossil fuels seems to not jibe with the reality that the only countries that have lower gasoline prices in world are countries whose economies are predominantly fossil-fuel based. See https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/gas-prices/#20184:United-States:USD:g https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/gas-prices/#20184:United-... If the US gasoline costs were even close to EU levels, (say, 2x what we pay), there'd be an inversion in household energy consumption economics (and it'd be the difference between 2% and 5% of household incomes). EVs wouldn't be just for tree-huggers. Buying from 100% clean electrical sources might be cheaper than "standard" sources.

triplee 7y ago

This is very true. I live in the DC area and the number of ridiculous "clean coal" ads plastered all over public transit and TV/radio here is insane. Lobbyists will be the death of us all.