pull down to refresh

37 sats \ 1 reply \ @0xbitcoiner OP 28 Jan \ parent \ on: How much in subsidies do fossil fuels receive? econ
I get what you're saying, but I also see their point.
When people hear that global subsidies for fossil fuels come to $7 trillion, they might reasonably assume that all of these are, effectively, explicit payments. And, if governments are handing this money to fossil fuels, they could reallocate that pot to something else (such as low-carbon technologies). In theory, they could do this tomorrow, and we could transition to clean energy very quickly.
The problem is that there isn’t a $7 trillion pot sitting there to be reallocated. There are annual payments of $1.2 to $1.5 trillion, given directly to fossil fuel production and consumption, which could be used elsewhere.6 Simply removing these explicit subsidies wouldn’t be enough. To tackle the other $5.7 trillion would require various approaches.
write
preview
24 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 28 Jan
It's fine to think through those things, but doing so doesn't require peddling falsehoods.
As with other industries, the proper check on negative externalities is making them liable for those damages to the damaged parties.
There's also an immense irony in bringing up a transition to clean energy, which would require far more subsidies.
reply