4 ms·

The notion that there are large subsidies for fossil fuels is not backed up by the data. There are currently more subsidies for solar and wind.

cameldrv 6y ago
The subsidy is that they get to emit CO2 for free.
- hackeraccount 6y ago
  Join the club? I mean, if they're doing it for free then we all are - if we're paying then so are they.
  - p1mrx 6y ago
    Yes, that's why taxing carbon would be useful; it encourages all emitters to find solutions in parallel.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> The notion that there are large subsidies for fossil fuels is not backed up by the data. The absence of Pigovian taxes to internalize te environmental externalities is a de facto subsidy equal to the value of the externalized negative impacts (it's paid by society at large through the externalized impacts rather than through government, but the impact is the same.)
- moreira 6y ago
  Calling it a subsidy makes it seem like it's something governments are doing on purpose. That they can easily say "this subsidy has expired, we're not giving it to you anymore". That is not the case. Implementing a new tax for CO2 emissions is a much, much bigger political endeavour than simply letting a subsidy expire and not renewing it. That's why there's not much value in perverting language to somehow argue that fossil fuels are subsidised. They are not, there's no way to "remove subsidies from their dirtier competitors", as the parent poster suggested. There is a way to tax CO2 emissions, but that's a different discussion altogether.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Calling it a subsidy makes it seem like it's something governments are doing on purpose. Governments are not unaware of the environmental impacts, so that impression is accurate.
  - Tostino 6y ago
    I think you view subsidy a little too narrowly. I'd be inclined to toss in a good chunk of the money spent in Iraq over the past ~20 years as a fossil fuel (and military complex) subsidy.
    - akvadrako 6y ago
      That doesn't make any sense. US is a net petroleum exporter and the cheapest fuel comes from domestic natural gas.
      - natch 6y ago
        Domestic natural gas is only “cheap” because the government is allowing frackers to extract resources from the commons without paying for the costs of the problems they cause. “Cheap” in quotes because anyone who thinks it is cheap is not accounting for some significant hidden costs. The tragedy of the commons applies here. If you are not familiar with that, it’s worth looking up. I’ll assume you are. Government can have a role in mitigating the tragedy of the commons by having the industry pay for the problems they create. Or government can look the other way, which is a defacto subsidy. We didn’t used to be a net exporter. Part of the reason fracking even got the traction it has now is that government was alarmed by how much money they were paying for the oil wars, and got desperate for any way to stop the bleeding.
        koheripbal 6y ago
        There are not large "costs of the problems they cause". This is nonsense. There are only a hand full of temporary cases of local well water contamination with benzene.
natch 6y ago
This assertion doesn’t even pass the laugh test. Massive repeated bailouts for the fossil fuel auto industry, gutting of EPA regulations to redefine pollution so as to let oil and gas and auto industries avoid financial responsibility for the pollution and other environmental damage (fracking quakes for example) they cause, and multi-trillion-dollar decades-long wars and military engagements all in the service of oil and gas, taxpayer funded, would beg to differ with your claim.
r00fus 6y ago
This is laughable. What do you call the $5T+ cost of the Iraq Wars if not a direct subsidy for oil. Hell the 2003 invasion was originally called "Operation Iraqi Liberation" - before that blatant of an acronym was deemed unseemly.
- Tostino 6y ago
  Yeah, just got down-voted for stating the exact thing in a different part of the thread. It's amazing that this is being glossed over now when it was such a major part of public discussion at the time. Seems like someone pushing an agenda.

cameldrv 6y ago

The subsidy is that they get to emit CO2 for free.

hackeraccount 6y ago
Join the club? I mean, if they're doing it for free then we all are - if we're paying then so are they.
- p1mrx 6y ago
  Yes, that's why taxing carbon would be useful; it encourages all emitters to find solutions in parallel.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> The notion that there are large subsidies for fossil fuels is not backed up by the data. The absence of Pigovian taxes to internalize te environmental externalities is a de facto subsidy equal to the value of the externalized negative impacts (it's paid by society at large through the externalized impacts rather than through government, but the impact is the same.)

moreira 6y ago
Calling it a subsidy makes it seem like it's something governments are doing on purpose. That they can easily say "this subsidy has expired, we're not giving it to you anymore". That is not the case. Implementing a new tax for CO2 emissions is a much, much bigger political endeavour than simply letting a subsidy expire and not renewing it. That's why there's not much value in perverting language to somehow argue that fossil fuels are subsidised. They are not, there's no way to "remove subsidies from their dirtier competitors", as the parent poster suggested. There is a way to tax CO2 emissions, but that's a different discussion altogether.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Calling it a subsidy makes it seem like it's something governments are doing on purpose. Governments are not unaware of the environmental impacts, so that impression is accurate.
- Tostino 6y ago
  I think you view subsidy a little too narrowly. I'd be inclined to toss in a good chunk of the money spent in Iraq over the past ~20 years as a fossil fuel (and military complex) subsidy.
  - akvadrako 6y ago
    That doesn't make any sense. US is a net petroleum exporter and the cheapest fuel comes from domestic natural gas.
    - natch 6y ago
      Domestic natural gas is only “cheap” because the government is allowing frackers to extract resources from the commons without paying for the costs of the problems they cause. “Cheap” in quotes because anyone who thinks it is cheap is not accounting for some significant hidden costs. The tragedy of the commons applies here. If you are not familiar with that, it’s worth looking up. I’ll assume you are. Government can have a role in mitigating the tragedy of the commons by having the industry pay for the problems they create. Or government can look the other way, which is a defacto subsidy. We didn’t used to be a net exporter. Part of the reason fracking even got the traction it has now is that government was alarmed by how much money they were paying for the oil wars, and got desperate for any way to stop the bleeding.
      - koheripbal 6y ago
        There are not large "costs of the problems they cause". This is nonsense. There are only a hand full of temporary cases of local well water contamination with benzene.

natch 6y ago

This assertion doesn’t even pass the laugh test. Massive repeated bailouts for the fossil fuel auto industry, gutting of EPA regulations to redefine pollution so as to let oil and gas and auto industries avoid financial responsibility for the pollution and other environmental damage (fracking quakes for example) they cause, and multi-trillion-dollar decades-long wars and military engagements all in the service of oil and gas, taxpayer funded, would beg to differ with your claim.

r00fus 6y ago

This is laughable. What do you call the $5T+ cost of the Iraq Wars if not a direct subsidy for oil. Hell the 2003 invasion was originally called "Operation Iraqi Liberation" - before that blatant of an acronym was deemed unseemly.

Tostino 6y ago
Yeah, just got down-voted for stating the exact thing in a different part of the thread. It's amazing that this is being glossed over now when it was such a major part of public discussion at the time. Seems like someone pushing an agenda.