3 ms·

1. Their using the word subsidy to trigger an emotional response; when we determine economic cost this is not what the word means and they know it 2. By callin

1. Their using the word subsidy to trigger an emotional response; when we determine economic cost this is not what the word means and they know it 2. By calling it a subsidy they treat the cost as a precise quantifiable value which is most certainly is not. The authors have taken a completely justifiable position and then thrown away their legitimacy by misrepresenting the data in an attempt to strengthen their position. You can agree with the top-level premise and agenda but how we get their is important.

shkkmo 7y ago
> The authors have taken a completely justifiable position and then thrown away their legitimacy by misrepresenting the data in an attempt to strengthen their position That is completely inaccurate. The very first line of the summary of the referenced article says: >> This paper updates estimates of fossil fuel subsidies, defined as fuel consumption times the gap between existing and efficient prices (i.e., prices warranted by supply costs, environmental costs, and revenue considerations), for 191 countries.