3 ms·

Is this now the fashion to blame the media by default? Subsidy is the exact term the study uses: > This paper provides a comprehensive global, regional, and co

Is this now the fashion to blame the media by default? Subsidy is the exact term the study uses: > This paper provides a comprehensive global, regional, and country-level update of: (i) efficient fossil fuel prices to reflect their full private and social costs; and (ii) subsidies implied by mispricing fuels https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Still-Not-Getting-Energy-Prices-Right-A-Global-and-Country-Update-of-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-466004 https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Sti... While it's a stretch to lump together all of the costs as subsidies -- maybe neglected externalities is the better term -- it is still important to call them out. Renewable or EV websites are often inundated with calls for ending subsidies for renewable energy, ignorant or not. They always conveniently forget the externalities of fossil-based energy, in no small part because of the lack of quantifiable cost. After all, if it isn't priced in, then the society has to shoulder it.

SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
> Is this now the fashion to blame the media by default? Subsidy is the exact term the study uses: Do you think the Guardian would run the honest version? Would it make the front page of HN? Does it matter if we blame the chicken or the egg? The effect should more people like GP exposing that this isn’t real. Not that someone has to cover for the poor defenseless media that seemingly can never be held accountable for their part.
- tim333 5y ago
  I think they might do more good saying fossil fuels have unpriced externalities of $11m/minute. Otherwise economically literate folk look at the headline and say not true while the others won't understand what they are on about. The misuse of language and accounting is annoying because if prevents clear discussion and analysis of the problems in an area where that is important.
marcusverus 5y ago
> Subsidy is the exact term the study uses I'm saying that they intentionally misused the word to confuse readers. The word subsidy has a specific and well known definition. A subsidy is a sum of money paid to an individual/organization/industry to achieve some goal. Or it is a tax break which is given specifically to an individual/organization/industry. The study uses subsidy to mean A hypothetical tax break given on a nonexistant tax, imagined by the authors, which would make companies pay for their externalities. Not a subsidy. Imagine we levied a tax to right the wrongs of misinformation. Under this tax, the guardian would be paying billions, billions in damages for articles like this! But they're not paying my imaginary taxes. So the goverment is subsidizing the Guardian to the tune of billions of dollars. It's a friggin' fairy tale. Further, the difference between the terms 'subsidy' and 'externality' is not trivial nor accidental. It's the difference between "your government is funneling money into industry x" (this message carries personal implications for the reader, making it likely to result in an emotional response) and "industry x harms the environment" (which is an old song and unlikely to generate an emotional response or reader engagement).

SV_BubbleTime 5y ago

> Is this now the fashion to blame the media by default? Subsidy is the exact term the study uses: Do you think the Guardian would run the honest version? Would it make the front page of HN? Does it matter if we blame the chicken or the egg? The effect should more people like GP exposing that this isn’t real. Not that someone has to cover for the poor defenseless media that seemingly can never be held accountable for their part.

tim333 5y ago
I think they might do more good saying fossil fuels have unpriced externalities of $11m/minute. Otherwise economically literate folk look at the headline and say not true while the others won't understand what they are on about. The misuse of language and accounting is annoying because if prevents clear discussion and analysis of the problems in an area where that is important.

marcusverus 5y ago

> Subsidy is the exact term the study uses I'm saying that they intentionally misused the word to confuse readers. The word subsidy has a specific and well known definition. A subsidy is a sum of money paid to an individual/organization/industry to achieve some goal. Or it is a tax break which is given specifically to an individual/organization/industry. The study uses subsidy to mean A hypothetical tax break given on a nonexistant tax, imagined by the authors, which would make companies pay for their externalities. Not a subsidy. Imagine we levied a tax to right the wrongs of misinformation. Under this tax, the guardian would be paying billions, billions in damages for articles like this! But they're not paying my imaginary taxes. So the goverment is subsidizing the Guardian to the tune of billions of dollars. It's a friggin' fairy tale. Further, the difference between the terms 'subsidy' and 'externality' is not trivial nor accidental. It's the difference between "your government is funneling money into industry x" (this message carries personal implications for the reader, making it likely to result in an emotional response) and "industry x harms the environment" (which is an old song and unlikely to generate an emotional response or reader engagement).