What are the major forms of fossil fuel subsidization, and are there no subsidies for renewables?

Just interested in the magnitude of what's really happening.

How about these

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment...

And the USA isn't alone

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment...

When the government stops subsidizing fossil fuels 10x more than renewables, look what happens:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/rundow...

But Trump and the Republicans might reverse that again.

> https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment...

"The vast sum is largely due to polluters not paying the costs imposed on governments by the burning of coal, oil and gas. These include the harm caused to local populations by air pollution as well as to people across the globe affected by the floods, droughts and storms being driven by climate change."

It's not that there isn't something important to be discussed there, but if that's the type of subsidy you're referring to when you say "oil is subsidized", it's going to be a messy, inconclusive argument, at least in part because your argument is based on (necessarily) made up numbers.

> When the government stops subsidizing fossil fuels 10x more than renewables, look what happens

No, that's what happens when renewables technology becomes economically competitive, this has nothing at all to do with the subsidy noted above.

I think you may have missed the second and third link.

Well, the 2nd link states:

"In contrast, estimates from the International Energy Agency (IEA) released in June showed that $557bn was spent by governments during 2008 to subsidise the fossil fuel industry."

...citing a document behind a paywall. So once again, I have no idea what the nature of these "subsidies" are.

From the 3rd:

"But over the course of the parliament, the department has given financial support worth just £3.6m to green energy projects around the world, data released to the Guardian under freedom of information rules shows.

By comparison, UKEF allocated £1.13bn to help fossil fuel energy operations in the same period, 314 times more. The support was in the form of loans, loan guarantees and other export credit support."

Referencing the cited link, one example is: "A US$367 million loan provided to JSC Gazprom to finance an export contract won by Rolls-Royce Power Engineering for the supply and installation of natural gas pumping units for the completion of a new compressor station near Vyborg, Northwestern Russia".

So unless I am mistaken, the entire value of a loan is claimed to be a subsidy. That is beyond intellectually dishonest, and that is just one example of why I do not trust the left, environmentalists, etc - very often, advocates on that side simply do not have a background for critical thought, mathematics, etc; they simply do not have the skills to properly assess the actual nature of many if not most of the things they are criticizing, and in my experience they are most definitely not interested in discussion in order to come to some agreement of what the truth is.

I've never seen good solid numbers that I liked. However, I'd say more than $100B/yr by US government, to protect our global supply chain of oil distribution. For instance, I'd say the entire cost of being in Iraq was an oil subsidy.

Well it certainly could, when the renewables industry has a plausible plan for complete replacement of conventional energy, I'm happy to support it with my tax dollars, or even before. And when that infrastructure is in place, I will happily remove my support for protecting this supply chain.

But until then, calling this a "subsidy" of the oil industry is a bit of a mischaracterization. (But not complete, as these costs should most definitely be included in a comprehensive analysis when setting policy.)

Extraction itself, especially of oil, is directly subsidized by the Federal government in terms of tax breaks to the tune of billions of dollars. There is also permits to extract oil and coal on public lands, including some national parks. There's the entire military industrial complex set up to defend trade in these resources. Finally, there's an entire political party devoted to fighting any effort to put in place a carbon tax or other measure which would account for the emissions of CO2 as a pollutant that is an external cost of burning oil, coal, and gas.

What's the case for subsidies?

1. Oil security from something like the oil crisis of the 70s.

2. Domestic jobs, especially in places like North Dakota or Louisiana which wouldn't have nearly the tax base they do without coal and oil jobs.

Well you know, OPEC drops prices and that causes us to abort all future investment in fossil fuels. Can't have that. So let's subsidize them.

Sovereignty.