tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post6616898213600847025..comments2024-03-27T23:59:49.801+00:00Comments on Stoat: OECD: Fossil fuel subsidies added up to at least $373bn in 2015?William M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-77195131405342447222018-03-14T15:11:24.290+00:002018-03-14T15:11:24.290+00:00The fossil subsidies are usually mostly captured b...The fossil subsidies are usually mostly captured by the better-off rather than the poor.<br /><br />I'm not ready to agree that renewable subsidies are worthless. Wasteful, yes, but they have contributed to the development of renewables.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-18772790784123326902018-03-14T13:43:33.421+00:002018-03-14T13:43:33.421+00:00The "fossil fuel subsidies" are mainly f...The "fossil fuel subsidies" are mainly fuel-price controls by governments, like in Venezuela, Iran, etc.. The state takes money from rich taxpayers and gives it to rich and poor people when they buy fuel. Poor people benefit, and (maybe) rich ones and the energy companies; wasting may be encouraged.e <br />Subsidies of "renewable energy" are paid manly by electricity-users and given to rich people who can invest in solar panels or wind-mills or biogas-plants. Only rich people benefit and mostly poor people are forced to pay. There is no benefit to "nature" or the commonweal.F. Schweizernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-38714477677134222782018-03-04T21:00:03.716+00:002018-03-04T21:00:03.716+00:00Because the FF companies make profits that otherwi...Because the FF companies make profits that otherwise would not be available to them. Consumers may pay with their health instead of (or in addition to) with money, but they do pay, so they do not receive a subsidy (in OECD countries).<br /><br />Was the report talking specifically about subsidy to FF companies or subsidies in general? I'd have to actually read it to know. The distinction doesn't seem important to me. Both increase the size of the market or lower the price (which is perhaps the same). Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00218203537404735086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-10385740848850153912018-03-04T20:22:43.348+00:002018-03-04T20:22:43.348+00:00But why is it a subsidy to the FF companies? They ...But why is it a subsidy to the FF companies? They are not burning the FFs. Consumers are, in the case of cars. If the FFs were more expensive, consumers would correctly be the ones paying. William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-61698386274560220542018-03-04T20:13:40.589+00:002018-03-04T20:13:40.589+00:00If filling lungs with toxins were to be disallowed...If filling lungs with toxins were to be disallowed, less petrol/diesel would be sold, don't you think? So suppliers would make less profit. The difference between before and after the ban is the effective subsidy.Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00218203537404735086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-91511929683948318972018-03-04T19:37:00.795+00:002018-03-04T19:37:00.795+00:00> the biggest is the implicit subsidy of allowi...> the biggest is the implicit subsidy of allowing our lungs to be filled with toxins<br /><br />That's not what I'd describe as a subsidy; and further even if it was, it would be a subsidy to consumers not FF companies. If you read the post, you'll see that I think that explains the difference between this number, ~500 bn, and the other number, ~5 tr.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-46731998515110149072018-03-04T19:34:42.375+00:002018-03-04T19:34:42.375+00:00There's lots of subsidies for the use of fossi...There's lots of subsidies for the use of fossil fuels Tom beyond direct production related tax incentives. There are things like building and maintaining strategic reserves that are physical, but the biggest is the implicit subsidy of allowing our lungs to be filled with toxins. How do we assign a value to that? Perhaps if we ask, if it wasn't associated with car use, how much would you charge *me* for permission to fill *your* lungs with toxins every day? If your answer is anything but a trivial amount, which is unlikely as it is your lungs, then multiplied across the planet the implied subsidy is so huge that anything given to renewables is a rounding error.Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00218203537404735086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-79529766901791378322018-03-04T17:53:56.785+00:002018-03-04T17:53:56.785+00:00I like to think I'd know Harold Clancy Everet&...I like to think I'd know Harold Clancy Everet's smoke.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-50608810670738265552018-03-04T17:51:18.685+00:002018-03-04T17:51:18.685+00:00Oh--my antivirus software rendered me anonymous. P...Oh--my antivirus software rendered me anonymous. Previous comment by Tom FullerTom Fullernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-20053460210577470342018-03-04T17:49:49.879+00:002018-03-04T17:49:49.879+00:00The last time I looked at this systematically (mea...The last time I looked at this systematically (meaning I got paid by a client...) the numbers seemed very much in line with your commentary in this post.<br /><br />Global spending on primary energy was (back then) $5 trillion, spending on renewables was $500 bn, and spending on solar at the time was $50 bn, which I thought was an interesting symmetry.<br /><br />The vast majority of spending classed as subsidy was artificial pricing for consumer purchase of petroleum products, with Iran being one of the largest subsidizers, Venezuela another.<br /><br />It is of course in the interest of polemicists to inflate the 'subsidy' given to fossil fuels by throwing in some things that are not really subsidies to the generation or consumption of power from fossil fuels. When I looked at US figures the amount of real support provided fossil fuel companies was surprisingly similar to the support provided renewable generators i.e., wind, solar and biofuels. I doubt very much if that holds worldwide and the numbers may have changed in either direction since then (2010).<br /><br />Governments provide very real support to fossil fuel companies. It is a legitimate subject for discussion and debate. Much of that support is revenue willingly foregone by the government provided in the way of favorable tax treatment.<br /><br />That debate is not helped by exaggerating the numbers involved.<br /><br />Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03982200336835258473noreply@blogger.com