SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the extant-dinosaurs-dealing-in-dead-dinosaurs dept.
Common Dreams reports
Governments are failing to properly tax fossil fuel consumption, with enormous environmental costs, the IMF reports.
The fossil fuel industry receives $5.3 trillion a year in government subsidies, despite its disastrous toll on the environment, human health, and other global inequality issues, a new report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) published [May 18] has found.
That means that governments worldwide are spending $10 million every minute to fund energy companies--more than the estimated public health spending for the entire globe, IMF economists Benedict Clements and Vitor Gaspar wrote in a blog post accompanying the report (pdf).
[...]Subsidies occur in two ways, IMF Fiscal Affairs Department directors Sanjeev Gupta and Michael Keen explained in a separate blog post published [May 18]:"[Pre-tax]" subsidies--which occur when people and businesses pay less than it costs to supply the energy--are smaller than a few years back. But "post-tax" subsidies--which add to pre-tax subsidies an amount that reflects the environmental, health and other damage that energy use causes and the benefit from favorable VAT or sales tax treatment--remain extremely high, and indeed are now well above our previous estimates.
[...]If anything, the report's findings are "conservative", Steve Kretzmann, executive director of Oil Change International, told Common Dreams. "[It] doesn't include direct subsidies to fossil fuel producers, and it doesn't include things like the cost of military resources to defend Persian Gulf oil."
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday May 19 2015, @07:11PM
Right, but if the government just yanked the subsidies today, you'd go crazy voting for the pro-subsidy people because of damn government meddling.
Well. Not you specifically. But "swing voters" would overwhelmingly do that.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Tuesday May 19 2015, @07:34PM
Not if they got subsidy checks in the mail in the form of energy vouchers spendable on any energy bill including a solar installation.
That's a bit ugly, but it is probably the only way to begin winding the subsidies down.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday May 19 2015, @07:51PM
Oh, I didn't mean to imply it was an unsolvable problem.
I'm always down to listen to status-quo aware incentive shift programs. But they still get demonized as unnecessary taxes or entitlements in the public debate. A recent example being cap and trade carbon limitting programs. Very quickly labeled "cap and tax" by the absolutely-no-addressing-problems-allowed crowd.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Wednesday May 20 2015, @04:26AM
There are a lot of myths about the Subsidies that the US pays to oil companies.
Some are explained in a rather balanced way in this Forbes [forbes.com] article. Another take is here, which is largely the same [mic.com].
TLDR: In the US the biggest subsidies to big oil are not what you probably think they are. They are mostly indirect subsidies. The largest is keeping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP - Also fund air conditioning for the poor, both essentially welfare, and all the money ends up in one energy company or another). These two account for about 40% of the subsidies provided by the US. Did you know Citgo (Venezuela ) pays huge amounts of LIHEAP funds to American Indian tribes and Alaskan Natives? Very strange, but true.
To this, if you add tax credits that any business can take. And some write offs allowed to farmers and other essential industry, purchases by the military, etc.
Direct payments TO big oil are dwarfed by revenue FROM Big oil.
Those things that are DIRECT are such things as Depletion tax credits. And it is also taken by mining (gold, iron ore, etc., but mostly Oil and Gas.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.