4 ms·
This article sources Fortune article, which sources a Rolling Stone article, which says "[The source IMF study] defines “subsidy” very broadly, as many economis
by 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 agoThanks 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.