5 ms·

Changing those subsidies to income tranfers of money would be cost neutral and strictly better or equal for everyone and save on emissions.

ivirshup 6y ago
The countries that I can think of which subsidize oil also produce it. Plus, it's easier to embezzle money than oil – so better to keep that.
sudosysgen 6y ago
It wouldn't be. Governments in such poor countries often buy fossil fuels below international market prices as they produce them, and directly giving money is problematic because a lot of people do not have bank accounts, and that fraud and embezzlement is a huge issue. I agree that they should be made progressive and thus reduced immediately and phased out as soon as possible, but it's just not feasible the remove them completely immediately.
- fulafel 6y ago
  Getting fossil fuels below market prices sounds like a way to fund the transfers to me.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    In theory, yes, but it's often more complicated than that. Often those agreements don't allow the governments to actually sell them internationally at below market prices. Also, you completely glossed over the rest of the comment, which complicates things even more.
    - fulafel 6y ago
      These agreements sound curious as they're tantamount to foregoing fuel sales income to the counterparty. Are you really free favours that the governments are getting? Re bank accounts and embezzling, these are no worse problems, subsidized fuel is also vulnerable to smuggling abroad and other kinds of corruption and systems of exchange other than gasoline are well known technology in history of human societies, however attractive the mad max model is...
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        Governments of oil-producing poorer nations often ask of companies producing fossil fuels that they give some part of their production at a profitable, but under market prices, in order to be allowed to operate. My point wasn't just embezzling, it was just distribution. A large section of your population might just not have a bank account. Also, it's way harder to embezzled fuel that money, and I'm baffled that you'd think some kind of government official could steal an appreciably high volume of fuel to be worth enough for the risk without involving a large number of accomplices and thus exponentially more risk. It's really incomparable.

ivirshup 6y ago

The countries that I can think of which subsidize oil also produce it. Plus, it's easier to embezzle money than oil – so better to keep that.

sudosysgen 6y ago

It wouldn't be. Governments in such poor countries often buy fossil fuels below international market prices as they produce them, and directly giving money is problematic because a lot of people do not have bank accounts, and that fraud and embezzlement is a huge issue. I agree that they should be made progressive and thus reduced immediately and phased out as soon as possible, but it's just not feasible the remove them completely immediately.

fulafel 6y ago
Getting fossil fuels below market prices sounds like a way to fund the transfers to me.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  In theory, yes, but it's often more complicated than that. Often those agreements don't allow the governments to actually sell them internationally at below market prices. Also, you completely glossed over the rest of the comment, which complicates things even more.
  - fulafel 6y ago
    These agreements sound curious as they're tantamount to foregoing fuel sales income to the counterparty. Are you really free favours that the governments are getting? Re bank accounts and embezzling, these are no worse problems, subsidized fuel is also vulnerable to smuggling abroad and other kinds of corruption and systems of exchange other than gasoline are well known technology in history of human societies, however attractive the mad max model is...
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Governments of oil-producing poorer nations often ask of companies producing fossil fuels that they give some part of their production at a profitable, but under market prices, in order to be allowed to operate. My point wasn't just embezzling, it was just distribution. A large section of your population might just not have a bank account. Also, it's way harder to embezzled fuel that money, and I'm baffled that you'd think some kind of government official could steal an appreciably high volume of fuel to be worth enough for the risk without involving a large number of accomplices and thus exponentially more risk. It's really incomparable.