3 ms·
'Subsidy' is the wrong term and there isn't 5.2T to just 'divert' out of fossil fuel -- and your linked article goes on to make just that point[1]. [1] and quo
by thereisnospork 7y ago
'Subsidy' is the wrong term and there isn't 5.2T to just 'divert' out of fossil fuel -- and your linked article goes on to make just that point[1].
[1] and quotes a figure closer to 500billion, globally. Which isn't nothing, but probably also includes places like Venezuala who massively subsidize their domestic consumption.
- marcusverus 7y agoIt is an intentionally misleading term. The first sentence of the IMF study's abstract makes it clear the their 5.2T figure is the difference between market prices and imaginary prices that account for all externalities, including some quant's estimated cost of climate change. This isn't even one of those situations where their use of the word is technically correct. I've never seen a definition of 'subsidy' that wasn't an out-of-pocket expense paid by governments. The use of the word subsidy is intended to put the idea into our heads that we're all paying out of pocket via taxes to support the fossil fuels industries. But that is the opposite of the truth. With a few exceptions (the Petro-states) fossil fuel prices aren't artificially lowered by subsidies, but rather are bloated by taxes paid by corporations and by end consumers. Fossil fuel industries fund our governments, our roads and infrastructure.