The US gives $0.6 trillion / yr in energy subsidies, about 70% of which goes to oil. Which reduces the cost of cars and trucks.
$600 billion by comparison is the size of the US military and $420 billion is larger than the sales of Exxon + Chevron + Conoco + Occidental + EOG + Anadarko combined. It's an absurd claim.
> The study found that "China was the biggest subsidizer in 2013 ($1.8 trillion), followed by the United States ($0.6 trillion), and Russia, the European Union, and India (each with about $0.3 trillion)."
> The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period.
Apologies, it seems fossil fuels get 70%. Not just oil.
Over 60 years.
The cited study from the sentence I referenced in my comment:
> Estimated subsidies are $4.9 trillion worldwide in 2013 and $5.3 trillion in 2015 (6.5% of global GDP in both years).
> In terms of countries, China had the largest absolute post-tax subsidies in 2013 ($1,844 billion or 19.5% of GDP), followed by United States ($606 billion or 3.6% of GDP), Russia ($318 billion or 15.2% of GDP), European Union ($295 billion), India ($269 billion or 14.3% of GDP), Japan ($142 billion or 2.9% of GDP), Saudi Arabia ($129 billion or 17.2% of GDP) and Iran ($118 billion or 32.2% of GDP).
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16...
http://www.misi-net.com/publications/NEI-1011.pdf
edit:
The other study that you provided includes global warming and air pollution as a "subsidy", no offense but that's pushing the definition.
"All estimates quoted are in constant 2010 dollars, unless otherwise noted, and refer to actual expenditures in the relevant fiscal year, rounded to the nearest billion"
At least to me that reads like "all estimates refer to expenditures from the relevant fiscal year only". However, they later quote the same numbers as being "total spending since 1950". Am I just missing an obvious interpretation for the footnote?
"from the relevant fiscal year" implies that each value relates to a corresponding fiscal year. Your addition of 'only' is redundant.
Regardless, this is a tiny point so I'll drop it. I still feel confused though :(
Excuse me? Japan privatized its rail system in the late 80s, doesn't subsidize any of the JR companies[1][2] (which are all publicly traded to boot), and has a profitable enough industry that there are now numerous private operators[3] of various sizes who successfully compete.[4]
1 http://www.railway-technology.com/features/featurelevel-play...
2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Japan
3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyu_Corporation, and see the box at the bottom for lots more
4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_Greater_Tokyo#Oth...
But to think about it more, why do people have to live in such lifestyle with so much open "wasted" spaces?
Why everyone "has a car already"? All we talk about is the American lifestyle which most American still refuse to adapt or look different.
There's not enough time to do proper repairs and improvements.
What I don't understand is why more cities don't operate like Philly and operate 24 hour bus service in place of the trains at night. With a system like that the night workers can still get to work as early as others and the bar crowd can still go out with out the craziness of last train like in Tokyo.
At least the NY subway is 24/7
No such fee structure could plausibly fund any rail system outside the NE Corridor. Prices adequate to sustain the network, let alone build it up, would put ridership into a death spiral.
You can't disregard the history of the highways, or the reason they were first built - for the military in the name of national security.
1) Rail systems are almost never profitable. The US, at least in spirit, doesn't like government subsidies. An investment in high speed rail entails paying taxes for it for many years or perhaps forever.
2) The US is much more rural than other developed countries. The land area compared to the population is huge compared to Europe/China/Japan. You almost need a car to get around because there's so much open space. Things are too far apart in many cases to make public transport realistic. Also, since nearly everyone has a car already the need for a rapid mode of transport is mostly met. Yeah it sucks in the big cities but a lot of the people that work there live far enough away that any rail system built would never reach their homes anyways.
You do see big public transport networks in places with extremely high density like New York, which has a similar density to most countries with well developed systems.
The notable exception I can think of to the trend is Russia, which has a lot of public transport compared to population density. This can probably be explained by a history of being a communist country as well as the relative lack of personal cars due to lower income and limited access to trade with countries that manufacture automobiles