15 EU states subsidise fossil-fuels more than renewables

This is report on taxation form European Court of Auditors. The purpose of the report is to describe how incentives and goals match taxation, carbon pricing and energy subsidies in countries. This report has a clear purpose and data is well suited for that.

Even more surprising is the green subsidy champion Czechia. With massive coal mines and coal powerplants owned by politically well-connected individuals. I think it's because early on the subsidies for solar panels were stupidly good (as in guaranteed that investment in it pays off in ~7 years and the rest is gravy)

What a mix of the rich, the poor, and the indebted. There really is no common thread with which to stitch those nations together, not ideologically nor even geographically. I.e., there is no obvious single problem to solve which would affect these nations' governing bodies' attitudes towards energy policy.

Sweden?

That can't be right, we have pretty huge taxes on fossil fuel and the government just increased them.

> Also, there's no such thing as EU states, like there's US states. In Europe, there's member countries.

The use of “states” for dependent, in some cases also notionally sovereign, subdivisions of certain independent sovereignties notwithstanding, “states” for the independent sovereign subjects of international law in the Westphalian order has been standard usage since before there was a U.S.

There are E.U. states, but they aren't like U.S. states, because the E.U. is an international union, not a state itself.

>Also, there's no such thing as EU states, like there's US states. In Europe, there's member countries.

Well, no. EU treaties to refer to them as member states.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:...

A quick search through the source document linked from the article [0] says they indeed account for petroleum etc. taxes.

Also, while EU “member states” have much more power than US states (including the ability to leave), they are “states” in the general sense of the word[1].

[0] Page 34: https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/RW22_01/RW_Ener...

[1] e.g. use of phrase "EU State aid" by the EU itself.

> Also, there's no such thing as EU states, like there's US states. In Europe, there's member countries.

Countries in the EU are frequently referred to as member states, like in the first line of the article.

> Also, there's no such thing as EU states, like there's US states. In Europe, there's member countries.

I believe the official term is "EU member state".

"state" is a very flexible term for many kinds of political entities, including countries, and correctly used here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)

1. Your numbers are incorrect.

2. They would still be way too low to account for all the negative externalities.

The taxes are also supposed to finance infrastructure, but they are too low even for that.

Sometimes it is for historical reasons, sometimes it is out of necessity.

For example, Belgium has an aging nuclear fleet that provides 40% of the electricity supply. 5 of the 7 GW of capacity has to be closed down in the coming years. All political parties, the operator and the nuclear safety watchdog organization are in agreement on those 5 GW, but there is still debate on the remaining 2 GW. Regardless of what happens to the 2 GW, the gap in energy supply of the 5 GW needs to be filled, and this needs to happen very quickly.

There is already a planned tripling of renewables, but it will not get done in time, and it will not come even close to covering the gap. The market also wasn't addressing the coming shortfall due to regulatory uncertainty. Previous governments didn't take steps to replace the nuclear fleet, and now Belgium has run out of time and the current government has just a few years to replace the 5 or 7 GW of nuclear capacity. The only solution that was found to keep the lights on was to offer subsidies to the market for building new capacity, and most of the offers received were for gas plants, because in practice that's the only thing that can be built in time. So in practice Belgium now is forced to subsidize fossil fuels or risk the lights going out.

Ironically the gas subsidies will create windfall profits for the wind operators, because prices are set based on the most expensive energy source in the mix, and even with the subsidies that will be gas. So the gas plants will run with a lower profit margin than the wind farms, and this is why Belgium will not be subsidizing renewables as much.

> I suppose these subsidies exist because politicians happen to have non-exec directorships with producer companies.

Or put differently: An industry that has been very large and very profitable over a century, captures government policy for their sector. (1) This will happen unless measures are taken to prevent it.

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

It's more complicated than that. Their rulling elites don't want their country to be the next Kazahstan or Armenia. Energy pricing is a very sensitive subject and a powder keg. There was a poll in my EU country which is on that list. >50% of respondents said that the energy crisis is the fault of 1. energy companies and distributors 2. the state. People will take it to the streets the next thing after the state stops these social subsidies. The EU doesn't have a solution other than slowly forcing these contries onto a free energy market and to dominish these subsidies. I can't think of any other solution either.

Yes! Exactly perfect example of why this is critical to understand that it's egoistic and we need to change it to change the incentive.

Cheap energy and the rest of the world is paying for it.

Fair? No.

Long term thinking? No.

Good for your lungs, etc. No.

Also faster we do the switch less expensive it will be due to the scaling effects taking off sooner.

We know we need to transform.