6 ms·

To be clear, this is treating externalities like carbon emissions as a subsidy - IE we should have a massive carbon tax to internalize it. Which from an econom

by Pxtl 7y ago

To be clear, this is treating externalities like carbon emissions as a subsidy - IE we should have a massive carbon tax to internalize it. Which from an economics standpoint makes perfect sense, but is not what most readers would consider a "subsidy" and so is a bit of a dishonest presentation. I agree with the conclusions, but I think presenting it that way tends to only embolden the do-nothing anti-climate-action critics.

makomk 7y ago
It's a very dishonest way of framing it. The entire article makes it sound like they're talking about actual payment to wealthy fossil fuel companies that could be paid to actual Canadians instead and would make them $1,650 a year better off.
- kennywinker 7y ago
  Not exactly. Framed the way you do it doesn’t mean i’m $1650 better off, it means government is hiding the real cost of my consumption and encouraging me to use fossil fuels. I’d rather bare the cost, and be able to realize the financial benefits of reducing my carbon footprint.
- Shivetya 7y ago
  pretty much how all politicians operate when they want something and how they get their message out through what we assume are reputable sources. They on the sounds plausible or I already agree with that type of wording to eventually turn us to what they want us to believe and get behind. however this article gives that up instantly and even warned us up front "Opinion" is the clear label and that means when reading you must come in with the understanding, all bets are off, what you are about to read may or may not be true and it is up to you to do your due diligence. Sadly most people won't if they agree with any of the premise of an article.
- gpm 7y ago
  > that could be paid to actual Canadians instead and would make them $1,650 a year better off. This much sounds like it is true. They could tax the fossil fuel companies and redistribute it to Canadians (which is in fact how the carbon tax works, except it's not that high).
kareemm 7y ago
Is it truly dishonest though? Are all subsidies cash handouts? There are eg environmental and health costs paid due to fossil fuel usage. These costs are paid (in Canada) by taxpayers via the govt since FF producers don’t pay them. Certainly seems like a subsidy to me.
- chongli 7y ago
  Are all subsidies cash handouts? Yes. That is the definition [1]: subsidy noun sub· si· dy | \ ˈsəb-sə-dē , -zə-\ plural subsidies Definition of subsidy : a grant or gift of money: such as a : a sum of money formerly granted by the British Parliament to the crown and raised by special taxation b : money granted by one state to another c : a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subsidy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subsidy
  - 131012 7y ago
    Point c could be used to include what's talked about in the article. The subsidy doesn't require to be received by oil industry to be deemed oil subsidy, like in the case of Ocean Protection Program.
    - chongli 7y ago
      No. If you allowed this then you could say that funding hospitals subsidizes tobacco companies, murderers, etc. Funding women's shelters is subsidizing the abuse of women! It's politicized equivocation.
      - omgwtfbyobbq 7y ago
        Funding provided to hospitals to extend the lives of smokers with lung cancer, either implicitly or explicitly, who end up smoking more, would be subsidizing tobacco companies. I'm fairly sure funding women's shelters is the opposite since victims of domestic violence can go to shelters to avoid abuse. But if it turns out there's a direct link between something like alcohol consumption and domestic abuse, you could posit that subsidizing alcohol in some way also subsidizes domestic violence.
SilasX 7y ago
Agreed, if you want to play this game, you might as well say that Canada is subsidizing criminals because of crime's unpaid externality. Total cost of crime is on the order of $100 billion in Canada[1], which comes to $2,700/citizen. Are you ready to say that Canada is subsidizing criminals, and when you force them to work off their cost of crime, you're just removing a subsidy for harmful behavior? No? Then don't be so loose with terminology. [2] [1] https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/crime/rr10_5/rr10_5.pdf https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/crime/rr10_5/rr1... [2] Previous comment/thread on the matter of using the term "subsidy" consistently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21018166 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21018166
tito 7y ago
Curious about this question of direct subsidies, will re-read the IMF report and see if they break these categories out. IMF report summary: - $5.3T global subsidy in 2015 - 6% growth per year between 2011 and 2015 - 6.5% of world GDP (2015), 6.4% (2013) - 24 countries have a subsidy >10% of their own GDP (including China, India, Russia) - Highest by percentage of GDP is Ukraine, 60.73% of GDP Source: IMF “Counting the Cost of Energy Subsidies” (2015) https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Global-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Remain-Large-An-Update-Based-on-Country-Level-Estimates-46509 https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Glo...
mogadsheu 7y ago
Agreed. A balanced and sober study would include the tax benefit from energy companies to Canadians as well as employee income.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jakobegger 7y ago
A few of the points mentioned (eg. guarantees and interest payments for the pipeline, or paying to prepare the harbour for increased oil tanker traffic) are pretty direct subsidies though.
aldoushuxley001 7y ago
the narwhal is very well known for its liberal bias, even to the point of dishonesty, so this presentation is not surprising.
ars 7y ago
> but I think presenting it that way tends to only embolden the do-nothing anti-climate-action critics. Not to mention that $1,650 is a very small amount to pay for this. I pay at least an order of magnitude as much in actual costs for energy. Why do people think the only way to get action on something important to them is to lie and inflate it?
eqdw 7y ago
I read halfway through and couldn't tell if the subsidies were thinks like tax breaks that _every_ company gets, vs tax breaks that they get _specifically for being fossil fuels_. I consider this distinction to be important, so I stopped reading.
perl4ever 7y ago
...but it wouldn't be a "massive" tax. Do the math, 15,000 miles / 25 mpg = 600 gallons of fuel, which is $2.75/gallon. But much of the carbon produced by a typical westerner is from fuel used for heating, electricity, or manufacturing goods, so the actual figure necessary to balance out would be even less when spread over more than just transportation. To be honest, I think that the "subsidy" is a made up number that would be unaffected by a different price of fuel, but if you take the idea and rhetoric of externalities seriously, then simple arithmetic diminishes the cost of global warming to insignificance. Not based on deniers' arguments or facts, but taking the figures of those who are concerned at face value. I remember getting much the same result from the National Resources Defense Council's estimate of climate change costs in a few decades. Better to say the "externalities" are "infinite" than let slip that they are only a couple bucks a gallon. Prices of fuel vary by several dollars a gallon from country to country, so if the cost was in that range, some countries might well be paying it already...if not now, back when the price of oil was especially high...if anyone was serious about their arguments and numbers. ...and if you try to argue with me what the size is of the externalities, you're missing the point. I don't know, I only wish people would mean something when they talk about the topic.

by Pxtl 7y ago

makomk 7y ago

It's a very dishonest way of framing it. The entire article makes it sound like they're talking about actual payment to wealthy fossil fuel companies that could be paid to actual Canadians instead and would make them $1,650 a year better off.

kennywinker 7y ago
Not exactly. Framed the way you do it doesn’t mean i’m $1650 better off, it means government is hiding the real cost of my consumption and encouraging me to use fossil fuels. I’d rather bare the cost, and be able to realize the financial benefits of reducing my carbon footprint.
Shivetya 7y ago
pretty much how all politicians operate when they want something and how they get their message out through what we assume are reputable sources. They on the sounds plausible or I already agree with that type of wording to eventually turn us to what they want us to believe and get behind. however this article gives that up instantly and even warned us up front "Opinion" is the clear label and that means when reading you must come in with the understanding, all bets are off, what you are about to read may or may not be true and it is up to you to do your due diligence. Sadly most people won't if they agree with any of the premise of an article.
gpm 7y ago
> that could be paid to actual Canadians instead and would make them $1,650 a year better off. This much sounds like it is true. They could tax the fossil fuel companies and redistribute it to Canadians (which is in fact how the carbon tax works, except it's not that high).

kareemm 7y ago

Is it truly dishonest though? Are all subsidies cash handouts? There are eg environmental and health costs paid due to fossil fuel usage. These costs are paid (in Canada) by taxpayers via the govt since FF producers don’t pay them. Certainly seems like a subsidy to me.

chongli 7y ago
Are all subsidies cash handouts? Yes. That is the definition [1]: subsidy noun sub· si· dy | \ ˈsəb-sə-dē , -zə-\ plural subsidies Definition of subsidy : a grant or gift of money: such as a : a sum of money formerly granted by the British Parliament to the crown and raised by special taxation b : money granted by one state to another c : a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subsidy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subsidy
- 131012 7y ago
  Point c could be used to include what's talked about in the article. The subsidy doesn't require to be received by oil industry to be deemed oil subsidy, like in the case of Ocean Protection Program.
  - chongli 7y ago
    No. If you allowed this then you could say that funding hospitals subsidizes tobacco companies, murderers, etc. Funding women's shelters is subsidizing the abuse of women! It's politicized equivocation.
    - omgwtfbyobbq 7y ago
      Funding provided to hospitals to extend the lives of smokers with lung cancer, either implicitly or explicitly, who end up smoking more, would be subsidizing tobacco companies. I'm fairly sure funding women's shelters is the opposite since victims of domestic violence can go to shelters to avoid abuse. But if it turns out there's a direct link between something like alcohol consumption and domestic abuse, you could posit that subsidizing alcohol in some way also subsidizes domestic violence.

SilasX 7y ago

Agreed, if you want to play this game, you might as well say that Canada is subsidizing criminals because of crime's unpaid externality. Total cost of crime is on the order of $100 billion in Canada[1], which comes to $2,700/citizen. Are you ready to say that Canada is subsidizing criminals, and when you force them to work off their cost of crime, you're just removing a subsidy for harmful behavior? No? Then don't be so loose with terminology. [2] [1] https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/crime/rr10_5/rr10_5.pdf https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/crime/rr10_5/rr1... [2] Previous comment/thread on the matter of using the term "subsidy" consistently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21018166 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21018166

tito 7y ago

Curious about this question of direct subsidies, will re-read the IMF report and see if they break these categories out. IMF report summary: - $5.3T global subsidy in 2015 - 6% growth per year between 2011 and 2015 - 6.5% of world GDP (2015), 6.4% (2013) - 24 countries have a subsidy >10% of their own GDP (including China, India, Russia) - Highest by percentage of GDP is Ukraine, 60.73% of GDP Source: IMF “Counting the Cost of Energy Subsidies” (2015) https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Global-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Remain-Large-An-Update-Based-on-Country-Level-Estimates-46509 https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Glo...

mogadsheu 7y ago

Agreed. A balanced and sober study would include the tax benefit from energy companies to Canadians as well as employee income.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

jakobegger 7y ago

A few of the points mentioned (eg. guarantees and interest payments for the pipeline, or paying to prepare the harbour for increased oil tanker traffic) are pretty direct subsidies though.

aldoushuxley001 7y ago

the narwhal is very well known for its liberal bias, even to the point of dishonesty, so this presentation is not surprising.

ars 7y ago

> but I think presenting it that way tends to only embolden the do-nothing anti-climate-action critics. Not to mention that $1,650 is a very small amount to pay for this. I pay at least an order of magnitude as much in actual costs for energy. Why do people think the only way to get action on something important to them is to lie and inflate it?

eqdw 7y ago

I read halfway through and couldn't tell if the subsidies were thinks like tax breaks that _every_ company gets, vs tax breaks that they get _specifically for being fossil fuels_. I consider this distinction to be important, so I stopped reading.

perl4ever 7y ago

...but it wouldn't be a "massive" tax. Do the math, 15,000 miles / 25 mpg = 600 gallons of fuel, which is $2.75/gallon. But much of the carbon produced by a typical westerner is from fuel used for heating, electricity, or manufacturing goods, so the actual figure necessary to balance out would be even less when spread over more than just transportation. To be honest, I think that the "subsidy" is a made up number that would be unaffected by a different price of fuel, but if you take the idea and rhetoric of externalities seriously, then simple arithmetic diminishes the cost of global warming to insignificance. Not based on deniers' arguments or facts, but taking the figures of those who are concerned at face value. I remember getting much the same result from the National Resources Defense Council's estimate of climate change costs in a few decades. Better to say the "externalities" are "infinite" than let slip that they are only a couple bucks a gallon. Prices of fuel vary by several dollars a gallon from country to country, so if the cost was in that range, some countries might well be paying it already...if not now, back when the price of oil was especially high...if anyone was serious about their arguments and numbers. ...and if you try to argue with me what the size is of the externalities, you're missing the point. I don't know, I only wish people would mean something when they talk about the topic.