Claiming that oil is subsidized is a tired trope. Yes you can argue that the Iraq War was done for oil, it's just not a strong argument. Many oil producing nations use oil revenue to subsidize everything else they (the government) wants, so the subsidy argument stands on weak footing for both consuming and producing nations.

Oil has unpaid for economic externalities, specifically climate change. This is not the same as a subsidy.

Here is an article with a long list of literal fossil fuel subsidies that are largely ignored when discussing the economic environment for fossil fuels vs. non-CO2 energy sources.

(The article also discusses some of the indirect subsidies that you're describing as a 'tired trope', but the main theme is economic stimulus that directly supports extraction, exploration, distribution, transport and consumption of fossil fuels).

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/6/1642845...

Why do they compare absolute figures? Is it surprising to you that fossil fuel subsidies are greater than renewable subsidies by such a measure? How much does each industry earn in taxes?

>Yet this fact, so inconvenient to the conservative worldview

Can you explain what "the conservative worldview" is for the readers? Sounds like the author has an obvious political leaning.

>Claiming that oil is subsidized is a tired trope.

Precisely. Energy of all types receive subsidies, and oil receives fewer subsidies per unit of energy produced than other types of energy. And, in most advanced nations, it's taxed at extremely high levels on the consumer side.

We need to reduce our fossil fuel use, we get it. But this idea that we only burn oil because it's subsidized is bunk. Oil (and coal) is cheap, regardless.

>> Yes you can argue that the Iraq War was done for oil, it's just not a strong argument.

If it wasn't for oil, then for what? Those chemical weapons that were never found? All wars that US starts (and 80 percent of all wars in the world are started by US) are either for oil, or other economic interests. "Spreading democracy" is just an excuse used by government's public relations division, but it is not even remotely true. There are many non-democratic countries, which US leave alone, because they have not enough natural resources or other wealth to be taken from them to pay the bill for war - Cuba is one such example.

>If it wasn't for oil, then for what? Those chemical weapons that were never found?

You have a pretty simplified political view, my friend.

Iraq sells oil into a market; how did invading them "get us the oil"?

Before the war US had to buy that oil at market price and all profits belonged to local companies (or to Russian ones, which also operated there). Since war American companies (Exxon Mobil) were granted licenses to extract oil from Iraq oil fields, and now the profits go to them. Not to mention that after Americans pretty much ruined the country, American companies make ton of money on re-building it from ruins. Pretty smart business model: bomb the country, and then charge it money for re-building it :)

Have you ever heard of Saddam Hussein? There were many reasons to invade.