G20 states subsidised fossil fuels by $3T since 2015, says report | Hacker News Reader

G20 states subsidised fossil fuels by $3T since 2015, says report

theguardian.com

43 pointsvoisin19 comments

We have 609 billion tons left to emit [1] before we're screwed. Amazing to think that subsidies are going towards spending that budget, as opposed to making sure we save it (and ourselves).

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/datablog/2017/jan/19...

Few people realize this, but the US government actually subsidizes a specific McDonalds in Odesa to the tune of $1M/year. The calculation is simple: in my ideal policy regime, that specific McDonalds would be $1M/year less profitable. I think we can all agree that it's ridiculous for the government to subsidize specific McDonalds restaurants. Consequently we should adopt my policies.

That McDonalds is such a blight on the street that having to look at it causes a million dollars in decreased happiness.

Is this sarcasm, or is there an actual fast food restaurant in a Ukrainian beach town that is subsidized by the feds as a relic of some cold war era propaganda campaign?

Sarcasm as the reason there is a million dollar subsidy is his imagined policy regime.

Odesa, UA or Odessa, TX?

I'll go with Odesa because that adds more flavor to the analogy.

Figures like these always imply some fun facts. $3 trillion in 6 years is about $15,800 per second. 3 trillion dollar bills laid end to end the long way (6.14") can wrap around the Earth's equator (24901 miles) 11675 times, forming a four foot high wall of dollar bills separating the northern and southern hemispheres (at 0.0043" thick per dollar). If 3 trillion dollar bills are laid end to end in a straight line, it takes a ray of light 26 minutes to get from one end to the other. At 2.61" in width per dollar, 3 trillion dollars occupy 119 million cubic feet, or enough to fill 50198 standard 40 foot shipping containers (each with an interior volume of 2383 cubic feet), so I guess a freight train carrying all that money would have to be at least 380 miles long. (corrections welcome)

A lot of the "subsidies" are just deductions available to businesses in general, like tax credits for research and development or not being double taxed on foreign income. [0] I have even seen the deductibility of interest included in these reports.

The others are externality calculations. Important, but really what they are asking for is extra taxes and calling it a subsidy when no money is being spent.

[0] http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2021/06/End-Fossil-Fue...

Are there a large number of oil and gas specific subsidies?

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.

Is it just me, or is there no link to the actual study this article mentions?

Such articles are so annoying. Here are the actual report[0] and the press release from Bloomberg.[1]

[0]: https://assets.bbhub.io/professional/sites/24/BNEF-Climate-P...

[1]: https://about.bnef.com/blog/new-report-finds-g-20-member-cou...

That's all? That surprises me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com