3 ms·
>When you consider that governments spend trillions of dollars a year subsidizing fossil fuels (this is not an exaggeration) It is an exaggeration, and it's mo
by navigatesol 7y ago
>When you consider that governments spend trillions of dollars a year subsidizing fossil fuels (this is not an exaggeration)
It is an exaggeration, and it's mostly on the consumption side, not production. Why does the OECD come up with $150-$200BB a year in subsidies? Why is the IEA estimate ~$400BB?:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-challenge-of-defining-fossil-fuel-subsidies https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-challenge-of-defin...
The IMF report says a whopping $4.6TT of the $5.2TT are "externalities". I think we all agree externalities exist, but externalities are not subsidies, nor are they easy to price.
- roenxi 7y agoAnd not only are externalities not subsidies, but looking at what appears to be the original paper [0] it seems that fuels for on-road use area big focus. Obviously, on-road fuel is not currently competing with solar panels. [0] https://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publications/WP/2019/WPIEA2019089.ashx https://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publications/WP/2019/WPIEA...
- the_why_of_y 7y agoExternalities that aren't priced in are distorting markets and the price mechanism in the same way as subsidies. Estimation certainly looks tricky, but I'd hope they at least get the order of magnitude right.