3 ms·
My impression is there aren’t really subsidies for fossil fuels other than as a rhetorical tool. What is calculated as subsidies are things like wars in the Mid
by therealdrag0 2y ago
My impression is there aren’t really subsidies for fossil fuels other than as a rhetorical tool. What is calculated as subsidies are things like wars in the Middle East or not pricing in externalities. So everyone can go “ra ra remove the subsidies” and then the politician is left with no subsidy to remove. Instead they have to do much more difficult work of passing new legislation that to the average voter sounds like punishing fossil fuels.
- ZeroGravitas 2y agoWell the IMF thinks there are over a Trillion dollars of explicit subsidies every year. https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies#A%20Global%20Picture%20of%20Energy%20Subsidies https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidie... And another 6 Trillion in implicit subsidies by ignoring the costs of local pollution etc. But yeah, if you categorically define something as "too hard" then it's too hard. Getting some percentage of that blood money back as campaign contributions and bribes is I'm sure not a factor, it's just those pesky voters to blame.
- therealdrag0 2y agoThanks for sharing. Notably to me the “explicit” category appears near zero in North America which is what I’m most familiar with and concerned about, and where I mostly hear people complain about subsidies. But for sure would welcome those other regions to remove their subsidies!