Re:Just 10% of fossil fuel subsidy cash 'could pay for green...
by 8bitsrule on Thursday August 01, 2019 @09:07PM
(#20589907)
"In India, petroleum subsidies have been cut by around 75 per cent since 2014."
The full IISD report the article mentions is here [0] (along with a key points summary) ...see 'PDF download' below the image at upper right. Very readable.
"The report shares examples of four countries—India, Indonesia, Zambia and Morocco—that have already been taking concrete action and leading the way by implementing fossil fuel to clean energy swaps."
Re:Just 10% of fossil fuel subsidy cash 'could pay for green...
by smt88 on Thursday August 01, 2019 @01:43PM
(#20586338)
Lots of high-paying jobs would immediately be eliminated. Millions of people driving gas cars would see prices go up a lot. Airline tickets, plastic products... the prices of everything would go up.
There would also be big national security concerns. It's hard to hold, for example, Saudi Arabia accountable for misdeeds when your economy depends on them.
For the record, I think the US should do this gradually. Some of the money could go toward welfare and unemployment benefits for people negatively impacted by job losses or price increases.
Re:Just 10% of fossil fuel subsidy cash 'could pay for green...
by gm_fan_boi on Thursday August 01, 2019 @03:02PM
(#20587155)
Let's not forget all the senior citizens who rely on income from investments in fossil fuel companies, this includes most of the parents of the under 45 who like to say, "screw the oil companies"
Re:Just 10% of fossil fuel subsidy cash 'could pay for green...
by Ambele on Friday August 02, 2019 @04:13PM
(#20596191)
If those senior citizens have index funds or mutual funds, they'll be fine because the indexes automatically rebalance to the companies with the highest market caps.
Re:Just 10% of fossil fuel subsidy cash 'could pay for green...
by Ambele on Friday August 02, 2019 @04:09PM
(#20596166)
Someone who likes to buy small-cap-value companies. This person could be domestic or overseas and might not care about US corporate negative externalities; just the dividend yield.
Re:Just 10% of fossil fuel subsidy cash 'could pay for green...
by goatinaboat on Thursday August 01, 2019 @05:06PM
(#20588374)
Wouldn't taxes be able to come down by a commensurate amount?
No, because the “subsidy” is just that some people feel that taxes on fuel should be higher. Nowhere is the price of fuel less than the cost of extracting and refining it, which it would be if it were a true subsidy.
Re:Just 10% of fossil fuel subsidy cash 'could pay for green...
by reitzensteinm on Thursday August 01, 2019 @10:58PM
(#20590391)
While true, those numbers are tiny. When people talk about fossil fuel subsidies, they're usually talking about the externalities not being accounted for, or the cost of wars/military.
Re:Just 10% of fossil fuel subsidy cash 'could pay for green...
by Ambele on Friday August 02, 2019 @03:57PM
(#20596079)
Taxes could go down by the same amount as the subsidies for all of the tax-payers, corporations, and investors involved allowing for a positive overall return to the economy if you include all of the inefficiencies avoided by having our government involved in these subsidies.
Re:Just 10% of fossil fuel subsidy cash 'could pay for green...
by rasz on Saturday August 03, 2019 @01:03PM
(#20601417)
Due to people not being able to afford the food. Modern farming could be summarized as a giant fossil fuel->food conversion apparatus. Not to mention distribution on top of that.
The full IISD report the article mentions is here [0] (along with a key points summary) ...see 'PDF download' below the image at upper right. Very readable.
[0]https://www.iisd.org/library/fossil-fuel-clean-energy-subsid...
"The report shares examples of four countries—India, Indonesia, Zambia and Morocco—that have already been taking concrete action and leading the way by implementing fossil fuel to clean energy swaps."
There would also be big national security concerns. It's hard to hold, for example, Saudi Arabia accountable for misdeeds when your economy depends on them.
For the record, I think the US should do this gradually. Some of the money could go toward welfare and unemployment benefits for people negatively impacted by job losses or price increases.
Isn't fossil fuel subsidies just a way to spread the cost from those who consume the fuel (directly or indirectly) to those who don't?
No, because the “subsidy” is just that some people feel that taxes on fuel should be higher. Nowhere is the price of fuel less than the cost of extracting and refining it, which it would be if it were a true subsidy.
Sounds like what every Central Bank in the developed world is desperately trying to achieve.
But how would you assess impact on the climate crisis (per se)?