3 ms·

US green economy’s growth dwarfs the fossil fuel industry’s

17 points by rblion 7y ago

marcusverus 7y ago
This article sources Fortune article, which sources a Rolling Stone article, which says "[The source IMF study] defines “subsidy” very broadly, as many economists do. It accounts for the “differences between actual consumer fuel prices and how much consumers would pay if prices fully reflected supply costs plus the taxes needed to reflect environmental costs”" In other words, the the quoted '$649 billion in fossil fuels subsidies' is not a subsidy, but the difference between current prices and what some IMF quant thinks the prices 'should be' to offset the climate effects of those fuels. This is intentionally misleading, as the word 'subsidy' has an actual meaning and implies a dollar cost--line item in a budget. It is difficult for me, personally to get on board with any environmental cause, given the heavy reliance with hyperbole and misinformation that seems to accompany climate advocacy.
- rblion 7y ago
  Thanks for pointing this out and helping me have a better understanding. I am growing to distrust more and more media by the day, especially anything regarding the climate. > It is difficult for me, personally to get on board with any environmental cause, given the heavy reliance with hyperbole and misinformation that seems to accompany climate advocacy. I'm going through a revolution of sorts inside as I realize just how prevalent this is. This is hard because I've been obsessed with animals and with nature my entire life. The recent developments with protests and activists has actually polarized people even more in my opinion instead of unite them. The media industry is very one-sided in this debate and attacks any counterpoints or critiques.
zaroth 7y ago
TFA is a superficial look at the very highest level hand-wavey numbers. What I think you would find if you peel the onion is that the green economy is driven by the extraordinary value that “green” technologies actually present for those that invest in them, net any offered subsidies of course. The way to grow the “green” economy is to continue to foster ways for green tech to provide massive economic value to its adopters. For example, net metering provides a tremendous incentive to install solar that otherwise wouldn’t exist because the batteries are currently too expensive to use all your own generation. As battery prices have plummeted, the time will come when removing net metering is the best way to incentivize the next wave of green investment, and replacing it with demand pricing of distributed supply. Personally I think investing trillions of dollars before the tech is ready to provide a solid return on investment would be a huge mistake. If the ROI is there then the government can spend $1 today to save $2 over the next 10 years, and since it prints money and inflation / discount rate is super low, it can do that all day long. Versus spending $1 to replace infrastructure with something that performs worse, meaning $1 today costs you even more money tomorrow, which is the equivalent of burning money for jobs programs.

17 points by rblion 7y ago

This article sources Fortune article, which sources a Rolling Stone article, which says "[The source IMF study] defines “subsidy” very broadly, as many economists do. It accounts for the “differences between actual consumer fuel prices and how much consumers would pay if prices fully reflected supply costs plus the taxes needed to reflect environmental costs”" In other words, the the quoted '$649 billion in fossil fuels subsidies' is not a subsidy, but the difference between current prices and what some IMF quant thinks the prices 'should be' to offset the climate effects of those fuels. This is intentionally misleading, as the word 'subsidy' has an actual meaning and implies a dollar cost--line item in a budget. It is difficult for me, personally to get on board with any environmental cause, given the heavy reliance with hyperbole and misinformation that seems to accompany climate advocacy.

rblion 7y ago
Thanks for pointing this out and helping me have a better understanding. I am growing to distrust more and more media by the day, especially anything regarding the climate. > It is difficult for me, personally to get on board with any environmental cause, given the heavy reliance with hyperbole and misinformation that seems to accompany climate advocacy. I'm going through a revolution of sorts inside as I realize just how prevalent this is. This is hard because I've been obsessed with animals and with nature my entire life. The recent developments with protests and activists has actually polarized people even more in my opinion instead of unite them. The media industry is very one-sided in this debate and attacks any counterpoints or critiques.

zaroth 7y ago

TFA is a superficial look at the very highest level hand-wavey numbers. What I think you would find if you peel the onion is that the green economy is driven by the extraordinary value that “green” technologies actually present for those that invest in them, net any offered subsidies of course. The way to grow the “green” economy is to continue to foster ways for green tech to provide massive economic value to its adopters. For example, net metering provides a tremendous incentive to install solar that otherwise wouldn’t exist because the batteries are currently too expensive to use all your own generation. As battery prices have plummeted, the time will come when removing net metering is the best way to incentivize the next wave of green investment, and replacing it with demand pricing of distributed supply. Personally I think investing trillions of dollars before the tech is ready to provide a solid return on investment would be a huge mistake. If the ROI is there then the government can spend $1 today to save $2 over the next 10 years, and since it prints money and inflation / discount rate is super low, it can do that all day long. Versus spending $1 to replace infrastructure with something that performs worse, meaning $1 today costs you even more money tomorrow, which is the equivalent of burning money for jobs programs.