Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5T/y, 6.5% global GDP

>So what is a subsidy anyway? Well, that too isn’t black and white. Typically, people on the street think of a subsidy as a direct financial cost that result in consumers paying a price that is below the opportunity cost of the product (fossil fuel in this case). However, as pointed out by the authors, a more correct view of the costs would encompass:

>>not only supply costs but also (most importantly) environmental costs like global warming and deaths from air pollution and taxes applied to consumer goods in general.

>The authors argue, persuasively, that this broader view of subsidies is the correct view because they “reflect the gap between consumer prices and economically efficient prices.”

>Without getting too deep into the weeds, the authors discuss both consumer subsidies (when the price paid by a consumer is below a benchmark price) and producer subsidies (when producers receive direct or indirect support which increases their profitability). The authors then quantify what benefits would be achieved if the fossil fuel subsidies were reformed.

>Interested readers are directed to the paper for further details, but the results are what surprised me. Pre-tax (the narrow view of subsidies) subsidies amount to 0.7% of global GDP in 2011 and 2013. But the more appropriate definition of subsidies is much larger (8 times larger than the pre-tax subsidies). We are talking enormous values of 5.8% of global GDP in 2011, rising to 6.5% in 2013.

>The authors also broke the results down by fossil fuel type and usage (coal, petroleum, natural gas, electricity). It is not clear to me how the authors separated the various fuel sources out of electrical generation; however, the results show that petroleum and coal receive much larger subsidies compared to their counterpart fuels. The authors organized results by geographical region and found that the top three subsidizers of fossil fuels are China, USA, and Russia, respectively. The European Union is a bit less than half of the entire US subsidy. Other notable countries and regions are discussed.

>There are two key takeaway messages. First, fossil fuel subsidies are enormous and they are costs that we all pay, in one form or another. Second, the subsidies persist in part because we don’t fully appreciate their size. These two facts, taken together, further strengthen the case to be made for clean and renewable energy. Clean energy sources do not suffer from the environmental costs that plague fossil fuels.

>I asked one of the authors, Dr. Coady, why their work is important. He told me:

>>A key motivation for the paper was to increase awareness among policy makers and the public of the large subsidies that arise from pricing fossil fuels below their true social costs—this broader definition of subsidies accounts for the many negative side effects associated with the consumption of these fuels. By estimating these costs on a global scale, we hope to stimulate an informed policy debate and provide renewed impetus for policy reforms to reap the large potential benefits from more efficient pricing of fossil fuels in terms of improved public finances, improved population health and lower carbon emissions.

>As a climate scientist, I focus almost exclusively on the scientific questions related to climate change. But equally important are the economic issues that, when dealt with, will usher in a new era of energy.

FTFY and KYS for those Communist Lies.

>>173388
Good argument. Very clear, very coherent. Really got your point across. Keep it up

>>173388
He spoke the truth.

It wasn't the reliable and efficient fossil fuels that driven America into debt. It's the unconstitutional welfare programs, like medicaid and social security, that plunged this great nation into delinquency and chaos.

>>173336
This is one of the largest problems with our current society.

Someone should teach OP the difference between causes and affects.

>>173416
You should end it so you can be with the good Americans in heaven.

>>173416
If fossil fuels are so reliable and efficient to be in high demand, why is coal mining in such an awful state? As a matter of fact, angry and unemployed coal miners were and still are a large part of Trump's support base, which they wouldn't be if coal was on the rise. A rather sad case of turkeys voting for Thanksgiving, if you ask me.

>>173743
>80000 people in low pop counties swung the election
Oooooooo
K

>>173480
You should learn the difference between effect and affect first.