3 ms·

Regarding your comment on energy - I hadn't thought about that but the worst of the fossil fuel subsidies has to be turning large portions of the corn crop into

by smoyer 11y ago

Regarding your comment on energy - I hadn't thought about that but the worst of the fossil fuel subsidies has to be turning large portions of the corn crop into ethanol then ruining the performance (and sometimes internal parts) of our internal combustion engines. It's truly the worst of both worlds!

mikeash 11y ago
In my opinion, the worst by far is the implicit subsidy where fossil fuel users are allowed to pollute without paying for the damage caused by that pollution. If you accounted for that fully, renewables would be cheaper today. Coal pollution alone causes something like one million deaths per year. It's like a big war that never stops. That's not even counting the potential deaths and disruption from climate change. Fossil fuel users poison our land, air, and water without consequence and without paying for the damage, but somehow it's the guy making solar panels and electric cars that everybody complains about.
- smoyer 11y ago
  Until the late '60s or early '70s, no one worried about the pollution so long as the economic engine was running strong. There were clear days that you couldn't see half a mile in Pittsburgh PA [1], and entire rivers of volatile chemicals catching fire [2]. We've done a lot to curb those excesses but I agree with your primary sentiment. Why pollute at all if we can avoid it? Interestingly, China's current economic growth is also fueled without consideration of the environment. You can still travel on coal-fired steam locomotives ... and they're not historic excursions but rather new technology. We also have to look at renewable combustibles as some people will claim they're not dependent on fossil fuels but they're still contributing to carbon release when burning wood (or wood pellets) as fuel. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=pittsburgh+steel+mill+smog&biw=1238&bih=897&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=BTdqVdyXB4uqgwSF-YDICQ&ved=0CCoQ7Ak https://www.google.com/search?q=pittsburgh+steel+mill+smog&b... [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=cleveland+river+fire&sa=X&biw=1238&bih=897&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ei=UDdqVce6OMWrNsfzgKAJ&ved=0CB4QsAQ https://www.google.com/search?q=cleveland+river+fire&sa=X&bi...
- nextos 11y ago
  That's so true. It's called an externality in the economics jargon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
- brucefancher 11y ago
  Thanks for providing some evidence to back your assertion. Oh wait, you didn't.

by smoyer 11y ago

mikeash 11y ago

In my opinion, the worst by far is the implicit subsidy where fossil fuel users are allowed to pollute without paying for the damage caused by that pollution. If you accounted for that fully, renewables would be cheaper today. Coal pollution alone causes something like one million deaths per year. It's like a big war that never stops. That's not even counting the potential deaths and disruption from climate change. Fossil fuel users poison our land, air, and water without consequence and without paying for the damage, but somehow it's the guy making solar panels and electric cars that everybody complains about.

smoyer 11y ago
Until the late '60s or early '70s, no one worried about the pollution so long as the economic engine was running strong. There were clear days that you couldn't see half a mile in Pittsburgh PA [1], and entire rivers of volatile chemicals catching fire [2]. We've done a lot to curb those excesses but I agree with your primary sentiment. Why pollute at all if we can avoid it? Interestingly, China's current economic growth is also fueled without consideration of the environment. You can still travel on coal-fired steam locomotives ... and they're not historic excursions but rather new technology. We also have to look at renewable combustibles as some people will claim they're not dependent on fossil fuels but they're still contributing to carbon release when burning wood (or wood pellets) as fuel. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=pittsburgh+steel+mill+smog&biw=1238&bih=897&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=BTdqVdyXB4uqgwSF-YDICQ&ved=0CCoQ7Ak https://www.google.com/search?q=pittsburgh+steel+mill+smog&b... [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=cleveland+river+fire&sa=X&biw=1238&bih=897&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ei=UDdqVce6OMWrNsfzgKAJ&ved=0CB4QsAQ https://www.google.com/search?q=cleveland+river+fire&sa=X&bi...
nextos 11y ago
That's so true. It's called an externality in the economics jargon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
brucefancher 11y ago
Thanks for providing some evidence to back your assertion. Oh wait, you didn't.