6 ms·

I'd love if things weren't so badly presented. Most of the subsidies are "implicit" - i.e. a tax break (not a real subsidy, just a funny money change) or a pric

I'd love if things weren't so badly presented. Most of the subsidies are "implicit" - i.e. a tax break (not a real subsidy, just a funny money change) or a price cap (also not a subsidy, I believe). Without that, the actual subsidies were $1.5tn globally in 2022. I don't know how that's counted, but clearly the main reason fossil fuels are available, and people buy them despite high taxation on them, is that they're incredibly useful, and not because there's evil subsidisation of an otherwise-dying industry.

henry2023 3y ago
Tax breaks have a very real impact on the proliferation of technology and deployment of capital. I agree they are useful and the demand goes accordingly but why subsidize something that we as civilization want to move away from?
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  They can have an impact, just as not punching someone in the face can have a positive impact on them. I just wouldn't call it a subsidy when you're not taking someone's money.
  - henry2023 3y ago
    I’m pretty sure you’d pay close to 85k for a 100k tax break on your income tax.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      I would, but I still wouldn't call a tax break a subsidy, for the aforementioned reason.
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    Regulations / taxes have an impact. The proliferation of SUVs has entire to do with regulation. It's easier to meet emission standards for a "light truck" (actual category of a SUV) so car manufacturers are pumping out vehicles with a similar size / front grill angle / etc so that the vehicle is under that category. You might argue that people have a preference for SUVs over Sedans but also note how similar all the SUVs appear; the appearance is part of the light truck designation so even if consumer preference drove a larger car design, the regulation has driven its appearance. --- That said, I think an additional gas tax that rose annually with the proceeds rebated on your tax return is one of the easy + effective solutions I've heard about. Doesn't apply repressively because at the end of the year they get the higher costs rebated but at the time of sale pushes people to buy non-petroleum alternatives as it's cheaper. Probably easier to just rebated it equally amoungst tax filers as opposed to a rebate and industrial use is going to dwarf consumer use so you'll personally still end out ahead.
Teever 3y ago
What would $1.5tn PER YEAR subsidies in renewables look like? What would $1.5tn PER YEAR subsidies in renewables and a reduction of $1.5tn PER YEAR subisdies in O&G at the same time look like? Think of these subsidies like compound interest, $1.5 trillion here, $15 trillion there.... it starts to add up.
- thelastgallon 3y ago
  To add to this excellent point, fossil fuels have enjoyed subsidies for ~100 years. Imagine the cumulative total of the money compounded!
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > Imagine the cumulative total of the money compounded! I mean, this is a crazy line of thinking. Without fossil fuels, what's considered valuable would still be "work life balance is slightly less time manually working on the farm" and "goods are the best stuff we can buy from people crafting the stuff within a 3 mile radius" and "education is what we can learn from the smartest person in the village". If you want now but without fossil fuels, you have to use fossil fuels hard enough to invent the thing that replaces them.
schiffern 3y ago
>clearly the main reason fossil fuels are available, and people buy them despite high taxation on them, is that they're incredibly useful, and not because there's evil subsidisation Laser-focusing down to only the "main" reason and ignoring all else will (as expected) miss the forest for the trees. Subsidies still do cause people to consume more fossil fuels than they would otherwise, so the policy is encouraging pollution (AKA health injuries and deaths that industry shirks accountability for) rather than disincentivizing it.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > Laser-focusing down to only the "main" reason and ignoring all else will (as expected) miss the forest for the trees. This is a very strange presentation of this concept. You think that the "forest" is the ancilliary reasons? I would say that with zero subsidies people would still be driving cars and consuming fossil fuels. The only reasons not to are: pollution, and city space. They are unreasonably effective and useful compared to all other options. That's why people like them.

henry2023 3y ago

Tax breaks have a very real impact on the proliferation of technology and deployment of capital. I agree they are useful and the demand goes accordingly but why subsidize something that we as civilization want to move away from?

robertlagrant 3y ago
They can have an impact, just as not punching someone in the face can have a positive impact on them. I just wouldn't call it a subsidy when you're not taking someone's money.
- henry2023 3y ago
  I’m pretty sure you’d pay close to 85k for a 100k tax break on your income tax.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    I would, but I still wouldn't call a tax break a subsidy, for the aforementioned reason.
- lesuorac 3y ago
  Regulations / taxes have an impact. The proliferation of SUVs has entire to do with regulation. It's easier to meet emission standards for a "light truck" (actual category of a SUV) so car manufacturers are pumping out vehicles with a similar size / front grill angle / etc so that the vehicle is under that category. You might argue that people have a preference for SUVs over Sedans but also note how similar all the SUVs appear; the appearance is part of the light truck designation so even if consumer preference drove a larger car design, the regulation has driven its appearance. --- That said, I think an additional gas tax that rose annually with the proceeds rebated on your tax return is one of the easy + effective solutions I've heard about. Doesn't apply repressively because at the end of the year they get the higher costs rebated but at the time of sale pushes people to buy non-petroleum alternatives as it's cheaper. Probably easier to just rebated it equally amoungst tax filers as opposed to a rebate and industrial use is going to dwarf consumer use so you'll personally still end out ahead.

Teever 3y ago

What would $1.5tn PER YEAR subsidies in renewables look like? What would $1.5tn PER YEAR subsidies in renewables and a reduction of $1.5tn PER YEAR subisdies in O&G at the same time look like? Think of these subsidies like compound interest, $1.5 trillion here, $15 trillion there.... it starts to add up.

thelastgallon 3y ago
To add to this excellent point, fossil fuels have enjoyed subsidies for ~100 years. Imagine the cumulative total of the money compounded!
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > Imagine the cumulative total of the money compounded! I mean, this is a crazy line of thinking. Without fossil fuels, what's considered valuable would still be "work life balance is slightly less time manually working on the farm" and "goods are the best stuff we can buy from people crafting the stuff within a 3 mile radius" and "education is what we can learn from the smartest person in the village". If you want now but without fossil fuels, you have to use fossil fuels hard enough to invent the thing that replaces them.

schiffern 3y ago

>clearly the main reason fossil fuels are available, and people buy them despite high taxation on them, is that they're incredibly useful, and not because there's evil subsidisation Laser-focusing down to only the "main" reason and ignoring all else will (as expected) miss the forest for the trees. Subsidies still do cause people to consume more fossil fuels than they would otherwise, so the policy is encouraging pollution (AKA health injuries and deaths that industry shirks accountability for) rather than disincentivizing it.

robertlagrant 3y ago
> Laser-focusing down to only the "main" reason and ignoring all else will (as expected) miss the forest for the trees. This is a very strange presentation of this concept. You think that the "forest" is the ancilliary reasons? I would say that with zero subsidies people would still be driving cars and consuming fossil fuels. The only reasons not to are: pollution, and city space. They are unreasonably effective and useful compared to all other options. That's why people like them.