TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker or making a Paypal contribution here: paypal.me/SupportTMC

G20 countries spend $450B a year on fossil fuel subsidies, study says

Discussion in 'Energy, Environment, and Policy' started by Ktowntslafan, Nov 12, 2015.

  1. Ktowntslafan

    Ktowntslafan Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2014
    Messages:
    713
    Location:
    Kingston, Ontario
  2. ggies07

    ggies07 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    2,263
    Location:
    Ft. Worth, TX
  3. Ktowntslafan

    Ktowntslafan Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2014
    Messages:
    713
    Location:
    Kingston, Ontario
  4. S'toon

    S'toon Knows where his towel is

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    1,979
    Location:
    SK
    G20 countries spend $450B a year on fossil fuel subsidies

    Full article at:
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/g20-fossil-fuel-subsidies-450b-1.3314291
     
  5. eye.surgeon

    eye.surgeon Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2014
    Messages:
    709
    Location:
    California
    Please. They collect double that back in fuel taxes at the pump. Those subsidies are the best investment the G20 governments are likely to make if it's money you're worried about.
     
  6. S'toon

    S'toon Knows where his towel is

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    1,979
    Location:
    SK
    These are literally the most profitable companies in the world, and often don't pay any taxes. Why should they receive any subsidies? Especially for things like "developing technology?"
     
  7. eye.surgeon

    eye.surgeon Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2014
    Messages:
    709
    Location:
    California
    ExxonMobil paid $27 billion dollars in taxes last year
    Chevron paid $16 billion
    ConocoPhillips paid $10 billion

    In fact they are among the top 10 taxed corporations in the world. Source is Forbes article, "which mega-corporations are most taxed".
     
  8. Six

    Six Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2013
    Messages:
    199
    And the logic being without the $450 Billion in yearly subsidies there would be no fuel at the pumps to collect these fuel taxes from individuals? The large oil companies would stop selling gasoline?
     
  9. eye.surgeon

    eye.surgeon Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2014
    Messages:
    709
    Location:
    California
    Would solar companies stop producing if their subsidies disappeared? What about Tesla's subsidies? Would electric cars stop being made without subsidies? Or are you just choosing to look at a industries you don't like.
     
  10. Ktowntslafan

    Ktowntslafan Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2014
    Messages:
    713
    Location:
    Kingston, Ontario
    Another great video:

    Elon is the leader, we are the followers, let's make a movement:

    Derek Sivers - YouTube

    Tweet your elected official, media and everyone else with influence.

    Together we can accelerate an EV revolution.
     
  11. Ktowntslafan

    Ktowntslafan Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2014
    Messages:
    713
    Location:
    Kingston, Ontario
  12. Ryan MF

    Ryan MF Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2015
    Messages:
    146
    Location:
    New Jersey
    Yeah, that's the point right? We want to encourage the industries that will help humankind survive the next 1000 years and discourage the others.
     
  13. Evbwcaer

    Evbwcaer Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2014
    Messages:
    470
    Location:
    Minnesota
    You do not even need to make that point, albeit valid. If a person is against subsidies, then fine, get rid of ALL subsidies and let the market work as Adam Smith intended. The bottom line is EV are cheaper to own, in a vast majority of cases, than an ICE. The difference is who pays the costs. With an EV, to a large extent, the owner pays the costs. With an ICE, to a large extent, the owner does not pay the costs. Other humans do by way of health damage, environmental damage, climate damage, political/military, and so on, pay the costs.

    It is only in a breakdown of the market, fossil fuels allowing a person to not pay the costs associated with their actions, that ICEs seem cheaper in proactively short-sighted analysis.
     
  14. ItsNotAboutTheMoney

    ItsNotAboutTheMoney Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    4,502
    Location:
    Maine
    Yes, yes, yes. No.

    A significant part of the competitive disadvantage is due to negative externalities that allow competitors to be cheaper than they should be. But even then, subsidies can be necessary for desirable technologies to help them get past the Catch 22 of economies of scale.

    Countries around the world are trying to ditch fossil fuel subsidies, because like most cross-subsidies they're counterproductive: not only do they rob Peter to pay Paul, they encourage inefficiency.
     
  15. Ktowntslafan

    Ktowntslafan Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2014
    Messages:
    713
    Location:
    Kingston, Ontario
    Despite a shift towards greener energy, the world also still runs on oil. As it stands, two-thirds of every barrel of oil produced is used in transportation. Climate change and low oil prices may have the sector on the ropes, but until the world figures out a better way to move around the industry won't be close to hitting the canvas.



    [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/oilsands-companies-eye-ways-to-adapt-to-a-post-paris-low-carbon-world-paul-haavardsrud-1.3310881[/FONT]
     
  16. mknox

    mknox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2012
    Messages:
    8,570
    Location:
    Toronto, ON
    I read that and wondered just how much of the $450B subsidies are just the same run-of-the-mill tax breaks that any corporation would be able to take advantage off. In other words, how much of the $450B is "above and beyond" the normal stuff and specific to the fossil fuel industry? That wasn't clear to me.
     
  17. S'toon

    S'toon Knows where his towel is

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    1,979
    Location:
    SK
    Full article at:
    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/11/12/3721677/g20-fossil-fuel-subsidies/
     
  18. S'toon

    S'toon Knows where his towel is

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    1,979
    Location:
    SK

    Full article at:
    http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/ge-exxon-10-other-major-corporations-paid-negative-tax-rate

    So yes, they sometimes pay NO taxes, and sometimes have a negative tax rate, meaning that they receive money back from the government.


    To the mods, this thread can be merged with the one in the News section.
     
  19. mknox

    mknox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2012
    Messages:
    8,570
    Location:
    Toronto, ON
    So re-reading what @S'toon posted, I think the $450B number is a bit over-stated. They include "investments by state-owned companies"? Well what owner wouldn't invest in their own business? Why single out investments only by "certain" shareholders and then call that a "subsidy"? And I'll bet the "tax breaks" are no different than the "tax breaks" any other company would get, so calling it a "subsidy" sounds a bit disingenuous to me. I'm interested in the number that represents the actual, honest amount of money that these companies are given solely because they are in the fossil fuel business and that other businesses would not be eligible to receive. I'm not suggesting it's zero, but I'll bet it ain't $450B.
     

Share This Page