4 ms·
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
by moreira 5y 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 5y 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 5y agoI 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 5y agoThat doesn't make any sense. US is a net petroleum exporter and the cheapest fuel comes from domestic natural gas.
- natch 5y agoDomestic 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 5y agoThere 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 5y agoBurning natural gas releases carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide into the atmosphere.
- Tostino 5y agoJust because you don't think it makes sense doesn't mean it wasn't one of the rationales for the war. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#Oil https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#O...
- suster 5y agoFirstly the US was not a petroleum exporter at the time of the Iraq wars. Secondly, one take on the Iraq war was that it happened not to obtain fossil fuel resources, but rather to obtain control over them, and prevent them being exploited in a way which threatened the interests of US and/or Saudi oil.