It depends on how one defines subsidies. But yes at least in the US there are a few that are very particular to the resource extraction industry (which obviously includes “green tech” activities such as rare earth mining.)

https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subs...

Good find. Thanks.

This feels like a rebuttal, but it's not clear to me what you're trying to say.

That a subsidy isn't a subsidy if it is given to more than one defined group?

That tax breaks aren't subsidies?

That cutting subsidies on something has a similar impact as raising taxes?

That raising taxes on things you want to discourage is bad? Or ineffective?

When I first read these reports, I got the impression that oil and gas was getting cash from the government or specific tax breaks. That 3T in tax dollars was collected and using a narrow definition of subsidy, paid to them or using a wider definition of it, fairly specific tax breaks.

My thinking was that the government was actively supporting oil and gas over solar.

Really what most of the 3T is consists of general business deductions that any business can get and negative externality calculations.

It seems like the vast majority of this "subsidy" is the untaxed externality. I absolutely agree that a carbon tax is needed, but it's pretty slimy to redefine the word subsidy like they have.

See the other comment. Direct subsidy seems to be 20 billion a year.

Damn. Maybe I should tell the IRS that I’m an oil company instead of an expat.