The Briefing Room
General Category => Science, Technology and Knowledge => Energy => Topic started by: Elderberry on July 25, 2020, 02:09:26 pm
-
CO2 Coalition By Bruce Everett Ph.D 7/23/2020
Executive Summary
A number of studies claim that pervasive subsidies provide an unfair competitive advantage to fossil fuels over renewable energy. Many estimates have been made of the value of direct and indirect subsidies provided to fossil fuels, the most extreme being the 2015 study by the International Monetary Fund estimating fossil fuels subsidies at $5 trillion annually.
On examination, many of the direct subsidies in this study turn out to be generally available to other businesses, and most of the value of the indirect subsidies is estimated from uncertain projections of future damages from fossil-fueled global warming, which are discussed in detail in a previous CO2 Coalition White Paper, The Social Cost of Carbon and Carbon Taxes: Pick a number, any number (http://co2coalition.org/publications/the-social-cost-of-carbon-and-carbon-taxes-pick-a-number-any-number/). The most thoughtful and transparent evaluations of subsidies are those of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a European-based coalition of 36 market economies, and its International Energy Agency (IEA). Many of the roughly 2,200 items listed by the OECD as “subsidies†are debatable. However, focusing on subsidies alone obscures the real policy issue, which is whether government policy in total reduces fossil fuel prices below their hypothetical market level and whether these distortions occur in markets where renewables are trying to compete.
To address this issue, this White Paper (a) distinguishes “subsidies†from “externalities,†(b) includes taxes in the calculation, and (c) makes proper geographic distinctions. Taking these factors into account, the paper concludes that, even taking at full value the direct subsidies cited by the OECD and IEA, fossil fuels are significantly overtaxed and not unfairly advantaged in most countries of the world.
More: http://co2coalition.org/publications/do-government-policies-favoring-fossil-fuels-hamper-the-development-of-wind-and-solar-power/ (http://co2coalition.org/publications/do-government-policies-favoring-fossil-fuels-hamper-the-development-of-wind-and-solar-power/)
-
There should be no government preferences for anything. We should let the market work it's magic.
-
Oil has a tremendous disadvantage in the energy marketplace in that prices are arbitrarily set not by the market but by supply manipulation by OPEC.
If this did not occur, the world would see lower prices across the board, furthering destroying any sensible appreciation for the need for renewables.
-
I certainly hope so if we are ever going to ditch pie in the sky ideas and government
subsidies to prefer what is called free power.
-
One thing the article did not list was what was considered a "subsidy" for oil and gas production. I would bet they are still considering the depletion allowance a subsidy, along with the government built roads.
-
I know where they can find the answer..........................Germany, just ask the German people how high their electricity bills are. The thing is that the Greens have so brainwashed the people they are happy to pay because it's all for Gaia.
-
Elon Musk’s growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies
Tesla Motors Inc., SolarCity Corp. and Space Exploration Technologies Corp., known as SpaceX, together have benefited from an estimated $4.9 billion in government support, according to data compiled by The Times.
https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html (https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html)
Cry me a river.....
-
One thing the article did not list was what was considered a "subsidy" for oil and gas production. I would bet they are still considering the depletion allowance a subsidy, along with the government built roads.
I wonder if they consider the Royalties and extraction taxes paid by oil companies too.
North Dakota collected 1.63 billion in 2017 in extraction taxes and gross production taxes, and even more than that in sales and other taxes (just short of two billion). Those taxes accounted for 45% of the State's revenue that year.
How does that come out to be a subsidy?