Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Tuesday May 19 2015, @06:01PM   Printer-friendly
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."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Funny) by WillAdams on Tuesday May 19 2015, @06:23PM

    by WillAdams (1424) on Tuesday May 19 2015, @06:23PM (#185160)

    If the oil companies get this money directly from the government, doesn't that mean that they are then able to charge that much less for their product? Making things such as heating oil and gasoline for commuting to work that much more affordable?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Funny=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Funny' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 19 2015, @07:03PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 19 2015, @07:03PM (#185182)

    In theory.
    But it also means they can take that savings and give it to shareholders and management.
    I'm sure it is a combination of both. Guess where most of it goes?

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by sjames on Tuesday May 19 2015, @07:07PM

    by sjames (2882) on Tuesday May 19 2015, @07:07PM (#185186) Journal
    p>The problem with that is that it distorts the energy decisions. It makes fossil fuels look artificially attractive.

    For example, if instead of making gasoline 50% cheaper through the subsidies, you saw the full price at the pump and had a voucher for half your current annual use per year, you might re-consider the value of driving a Humvee 100miles a day to work even though financially your situation hasn't changed. Perhaps you'd choose a smaller car so your voucher would cover all of your fuel costs.

    • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday May 19 2015, @07:11PM

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 19 2015, @07:11PM (#185189) Journal

      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

        by sjames (2882) on Tuesday May 19 2015, @07:34PM (#185200) Journal

        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

          by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 19 2015, @07:51PM (#185205) Journal

          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

        by frojack (1554) on Wednesday May 20 2015, @04:26AM (#185298) Journal

        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.
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Tuesday May 19 2015, @09:08PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday May 19 2015, @09:08PM (#185216)

      That's only part of the problem. The other distortion in the market is that because, say, half the cost is something you pay whether or not you purchase oil-based products, it means urban folks who use public transit or travel on foot are paying for rural folks' gasoline.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aclarke on Wednesday May 20 2015, @01:08AM

        by aclarke (2049) on Wednesday May 20 2015, @01:08AM (#185267) Homepage

        True, but it's the "rural folks' gasoline" that is growing food so the urban folks don't starve to death.

        We're both simplifying a complex problem. Believe me, I'd love to take a bus more, if the closest bus stop wasn't about 15km away. On the other hand, I work from home so I still likely burn less fuel than an urban commuter on a bus or train. When I do drive, I drive a diesel truck, but that truck was also hauling firewood earlier this evening, which is hard to do with a Prius.

        In the end, I'm all for counting in the currently externalized costs of fossil fuel.

  • (Score: 1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 19 2015, @07:22PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 19 2015, @07:22PM (#185193)

    charge ... less for their product

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHhahahahahahahahaha, AHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHahhahahahah! BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAH!!!