IMF -Global fossil fuel subsidies $4.7 Trillion - US $649Billion

This latest report from the International Monetary Fund examines global fossil fuel subsidies and pricing.

It seems the US taxpayers pay out more in corporate welfare for american fossil fuel companies than they do for their military, in 2017.

Perhaps this might explain why some people so adamant about supporting the "economics" of fossil fuels as opposed to renewables. Of course climate change can't possibly be an influence when considering that much cash.

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications...Update-Based-on-Country-Level-Estimates-46509

 

It would be nice if the IMF had even a faint understanding of cost accounting.

 

Can you tell us how US subsidies work?

 

Great post. How many times have we heard fossil fuel protectors slam renewables for not being a cost effective alternative to entrenched energy sources? Never willing to admit to the huge subsidies legacy energy companies get by greasing the palms of Congress.

 

I believe this is some type of a "depletion" subsidy. It's one of those tax giveaways to corporations that is known as corporate welfare. It's been going on for 50 years or more. It's a gigantic ripoff for consumers.

 

I noticed the IMF failed to account for the use taxes added in countries like those in the EU... Of course, those are "fair" prices then... The IMF is simply working to improve the cost of energy, and the lefty posters here are gobbling that shyte up. Brava...

 

It would be nice if uninformed critics of the report had a clue about the criteria it was based on.

"This paper updates estimates of fossil fuel subsidies, defined as fuel consumption times the gap between existing and efficient prices (i.e., prices warranted by supply costs, environmental costs, and revenue considerations), for 191 countries."

 

Not really a subsidy. It is similar to other depreciation deductions.

 

Oil, gas and coal companies — and their stooges in public office — have long argued that making consumers pay for the full impacts of fossil fuel use would cripple the economy. The IMF experts call bullshit on this idea, revealing that the world would, in fact, be more prosperous. Eliminating subsidies for fossil fuels would have created global “net economic welfare gains” in 2015 of “more than $1.3 trillion, or 1.7 percent of global GDP,” the study found. (These net gains are “calculated as the benefits from reduced environmental damage and higher revenue minus the losses from consumers facing higher energy prices.”)

https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...ubsidies-pentagon-spending-imf-report-833035/

 

Sorry welfare is being given some one else's stuff being allowed to keep your own stuff is not welfare. But you are right about the depletion allowance which applies to every mining concern in the country including sand.

 

Yeah, I mean the International Monetary Fund has no clue about accounting.

Dunning Kruger is real.

 

If you measure the amount of subsidies per output, renewables actually get a much larger percentage of subsidies.

 

Its detailed in the report. IN fact its in second section immediately following the Executive Summary. Page 6.

 

So? Does that make the fossil fuel industries massive corporate socialism program any less palatable?

 

Hey, as long as you don't mind paying more I have no problem removing subsidies.

 

Put it in you own words if you can

If not why not?

 

To be fair, the IMF report includes environmental costs and counts them as an indirect subsidy. Now, I think it is fair to account for externalities in the cost-benefit analysis. However, I think it will be extremely difficult to give an exact $ number as to how much damage fossil fuel usage did in one year in terms of environmental costs.

What is out of the question, however, is that even without externalities, fossil fuels have received about 10 times the cumulative direct subsidies compared to renewables. That;s why subsidies are a MUST for renewables, to level the playing field and eliminate the subsidy advantage that fossils have enjoyed for almost 100 years.

 

In all fairness the total numbers are "mushy", especially costs of environmental/medical impacts. However, this is noted and put into context within the report itself. The costs of down line effects have always been a contentious capitalist issue, while the commies blatantly didn't give a crap. Its not so much the exact numbers as it's an indication of the vast economic and social subsidies (costs to taxpayers) that the industry enjoys.

 

I see thinking for yourself devolves quickly into tell me what I don't know.

 

Removing subsides for fossil fuels would mean charging their producers and users for externalities, i.e. a carbon tax. Are you in?

 

No, a tax based on hysteria over a computer model, RCP 8.5, which is the most unlikely to happen is quite stupid.

 

I have no idea what goofy explaination you believe

And I wont attempt to guess

And having it in your own words tells me if you even understand what you are saying

 

I have no idea if you have any idea to begin with or if you are just too friggin' lazy to learn anything that isn't spoon fed.

And I won't attempt to guess.

I find it rather interesting that when presented with a cogent, detailed explanation in print, you respond with an assumption that others might share your own comprehension challenges.

 

Its pretty lazy to let other people argue for you

 

Haven't read it yet (tonight maybe). Do they count the lack of environmental laws as a subsidy and, conversely, EPA compliance a tax?