> (c) 10 million air pollution deaths/year

That's a drop in the bucket compared to the plausible future deaths from climate change. Burning gasoline moves carbon from the ground into the air, and we basically have no idea how to undo that operation at an appropriate scale.

If we ran out of oil today billions would die.

yes, and?

so using those 10 million air pollution deaths/year figure without the context of the deaths that would've occurred had we not have good fuel for transportation etc, means it's just a piece of statistic meant to misinform you about the argument.

I already said upthread that pollution deaths are a drop in the bucket. Modern gasoline engines are pretty clean, if you ignore the enormous future effects of CO2.

Undoing this will probably take more energy than what we gained from burning gasoline.

If you consider the whole operation (extracting oil -> refining fuel -> burning fuel -> sequestering carbon -> storing said carbon underground), the whole cycle probably provides negative energy.

At this point, things like biodiesel or alcohol (which can be processed from plants) seem more energetically efficient.

> (extracting oil -> refining fuel -> burning fuel -> sequestering carbon -> storing said carbon underground), the whole cycle probably provides negative energy

Very straightforwardly true. But if you add some steps: having an industrial revolution -> developing technology -> manufacturing solar panels or other renewables on a massive scale -> collecting energy for the carbon sequestration - you could imagine the human race coming out ahead.

Renewables can replace fossil fuels as an energy source. To undo a century plus of burning fossil fuels, you'll need a revolutionary energy source that outputs an order of magnitude more power. Maybe fusion, or maybe something that we cannot yet fathom. You can imagine this all coming to a happy ending, but at this point it's all up in the air. Both the CO2 and whether it'll ever come down again.

(d) Billions of dollars per year of climate change induced damages and rising.

(e) Thousands of person-years wasted bickering over how real climate change is and what the magnitude will really be, when it ought to be obvious that renewable energy sources are preferable to non-renewable ones.

How many death certificates read: "died of air pollution"? Where are such deaths occurring.

I was under the impression that death certificates only list the immediate cause of death, and maybe occasionally some immediate biological confounders (e.g. pneumonia caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis).

Here's one for you though: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-pollution-rec...

: Pollution has been recorded as a cause of death for the first time in the UK at the inquest of a nine-year-old girl.

: A coroner concluded air pollution made a "material contribution" to the death of Ella Adoo Kissi-Debrah after a severe asthma attack in February 2013, in the landmark ruling.

: The schoolgirl, who lived in Lewisham, South London, was rushed to hospital at 2am before she died.

: Her family has long argued that pollution caused her death, and it has emerged that levels of nitrogen dioxide where she lived were unlawful.

…you’re suggesting pollution is fake news?

Denying that pollution exists is very different from having some skepticism that one in six deaths worldwide is caused thereby.

I believe air pollution can be a contributing factor but rarely the principal cause of death. If it was, everyone in the area would die from air pollution. Stating that an elderly person or someone who is already very sick died from air pollution is disingenuous.

> someone who is already very sick

But what caused this initial sickness?

https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/links-between-air-polluti...

: In a study funded in part by EPA, researchers from Johns Hopkins University found that children exposed to outdoor coarse particulate matter (PM10-2.5), were more likely to develop asthma

: Coarse PM can come from roadway particles such as brake and tire wear, and mixtures of road dust and metals.

: This finding is significant because while researchers have generally found that exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is associated with the development of asthma and other respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.

: While researchers do not fully understand how air pollution exposure increases asthma prevalence, evidence suggests air pollutants suppress genes that regulate the immune system’s ability to differentiate an allergen from a dangerous foreign substance, such as a virus or bacteria. The immune system then goes into action, setting up an inflammatory response whether the substance is harmful or not, which leads to asthma.

: In the study, researchers from the Children’s Center at Stanford University examined the impact of air pollution on two genes involved in immune tolerance in children from an area known to have high air pollution levels. Researchers found that short-term and long-term exposures to high levels of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and PM 2.5 were associated with alterations to these two genes and those alterations were significantly associated with asthma.

Keep in mind that the subsidy figure quoted includes more than direct government support. It also considers a lack of climate taxes or surcharges to be a “subsidy”, something that falls outside of the ordinary meaning of subsidy for most people. This makes it misleading even if the aim is good.

Lowering or removing tax is subsidy for all intents and purpose. It functions in the same way.

I think you misunderstood. Taxes have not been lowered or removed, they don't exist in the first place.

Would you apply that in other areas?

For example, the highest income tax rate in the UK is 45%. If I estimate that it should be 60% can I truthfully say that right people are getting a 15% (of pretax income) income subsidy? There is 0% VAT on books, if I think it should be the standard 20% can I truthfully say the government is subsidising the purchases of books? When people were campaigning to abolish the 5% VAT on tampons and STs would it have been a valid counter argument to say they were being subsidised by not being subject to the 20% rate?

Marginal tax on income is far higher than 45% in many cases. For starters there's national insurance, but then there's also extra tax for people earning between about 50 and 60k pushing marginal tax for many above 60%, even 70% (and that's assuming they didn't go to university)

A graduate with 3 kids on 55k, with their employer spending £1138 on a bonus, gets

* £138 on NI (employer)

* £20 on NI (employee)

* £90 graduate tax (student loan payments which in the UK are income based)

* £400 income tax

* £290 child tax (the uk government give one parent about £1k a child per year, but then takes it away for those earning between 50 and 60k. Two parents can earn 50k each and receive the full amount, but a single parent on 60k gets nothing)

Leaving them with just £200, or 17.5% of the money their company spent on them.

For those of us earning 150k, who have paid off that student loan, have been fully taxed for the kids, get to keep about half of that £1138.

All true, but not relevant to the point I was trying to make. There are far too many quirks in the tax system to take account for everything, so my example is 45% but you think it should be higher ceterius paribus.

If you are suggesting the tax system is unfair or that NI is a way of disguising the fact that earned income is taxed at a higher rate than unearned income I agree with you!

I don't think it should be higher at all, I'm pointing out that it is higher, but only for the lower paid.

Yes the government is subsidising the purchases of books when it puts a 5% VAT on it, where its substitutions are not. The state is financially supporting the product in order to incentivise its use. A tax incentive is an example of a subsidy.

> considers a lack of climate taxes or surcharges to be a “subsidy”

Aww.. the Government are such a lovely, benevolent bunch, what would we do without them.

Pull out yet another ridiculous tax out of your ass, then slap it on everything and the things you didn't slap it on (yet)... call that a subsidy. Just government things * chefs kiss *

Wars are fought to protect oil supplies. A trillions of dollars sounds very believable

> 10 million air pollution deaths/year:

I hope you're not forgetting to factor in the positive effects of those 10 million people not being able to cause any more pollution </sarcasm>...

Before gasoline and gas people burned wood to stay warm, in houses with very primitive chimneys. Lots of people died from air pollution then, but maybe less because the populations were smaller. Same with cars: if you take accidents per driven mile most cars are extremely safe compared to horse riding. I don't think returning to the 1700's with the current world population is a viable option.

For what it's worth modern heating with wood is zero carbon (at least in Canada).

We plant a tree that gets burned, so embodied carbon gets released. And the modern appliances emit 1g/kg of particulate emission.

You'll need a lot of trees close by then, which is not an option in some densely populated countries. If you're hauling trees using diesel trucks and chopping them up with petrol chainsaws you might as well just pump natural gas to houses.