GM Volt Forum banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,860 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This is a pretty good read. I noted that "G-20 nations spent $160 billion supporting the production and consumption of fossil fuels last year" and that "they have failed to identify many subsidies benefiting producers of fossil fuels, which are also covered by the G-20 pledge" (to eliminate fossil fuel subsidy).

Any time that society does not recover external costs created, a stealth subsidy has been created. These external costs include environmental degradation (i.e. drilling in a conservation area), emitting mercury into the air, and so forth. Subsidy does not always consist of handing a corporation a local, state or federal tax break.

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/09/3256775/fossil-fuel-users-subsidies-six.html

Fossil fuel users’ subsidies six times those for renewable energy

"State spending to cut retail prices of gasoline, coal and natural gas rose 36 percent to $409 billion as global energy costs increased, the Paris-based International Energy Agency said Wednesday in its World Energy Outlook"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
923 Posts
"State spending to cut retail prices of gasoline, coal and natural gas rose 36 percent to $409 billion as global energy costs increased, the Paris-based International Energy Agency said Wednesday in its World Energy Outlook"
I suppose that if they didn't do this, it would have more of a huge impact on the economy.......skyrocketing energy prices!
Not supporting this logic but understand where they are coming from.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,053 Posts
I was hoping for more discussion on specific examples of subsidies. As we educate others on the value of EVs & solar, it helps them understand if we can point out what the REAL costs are @ the pump & electric meter. If folks understood that they were just seeing costs shifted from the obvious purchase and into their total tax bill instead, the conversion to renewables would become a no-brainer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,486 Posts
I'd like to see governments start to cut those subsidies of energy. With artificially low fuel prices, economies and people act differently. They abuse the resource using more of it. They also feel comfortable taking jobs farther from home and even go as far as having more children when fuel prices are low and it feels comfortable growing a family because costs are down. If real-costs of commodities were at hand, we would then feel the correct prices of products and services in our world and we could adapt. Subsidies are a control mechanism and don't allow free-market adaptation.

Would higher fuel prices hurt the economy? To some degree but it could help in other ways. We'd be less wasteful, we might buy higher mpg cars, we might car-pool or take mass transit more. We might entertain at home rather than going long distance. We might get smarter about our fuel usage and it may bring us closer together with our neighbors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
977 Posts
Do they include the costs of US military defense of access to the various oil regions, and the wars in same?

(Because if it weren't for the oil, would the US or the rest of the western world have anything to do with that godforsaken region and its primitive screwheads?)

Howsabout an oil tariff or gas tax to offset that military subsidy? $3-4/gal or $100/bbl should do it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,165 Posts
Do they include the costs of US military defense of access to the various oil regions, and the wars in same?

(Because if it weren't for the oil, would the US or the rest of the western world have anything to do with that godforsaken region and its primitive screwheads?)

Howsabout an oil tariff or gas tax to offset that military subsidy? $3-4/gal or $100/bbl should do it.
Well much of the oil "subsidy" is not in the US or EU. And no they don't count military support, they are only looking at direct subsidies. Most government studieis don't include military support. The relevant literature
and government rule-making have often assumed these costs to
be nonlinear and coupled with other US strategic objectives, and
they are often omitted from gasoline externality analyses. Some just discount it heavily, e.g. the CMU study on PHEV40 vs PHEV20 vs BEV
(http://www.cmu.edu/me/ddl/publications/2011-PNAS-Michalek-etal-PHEV-Valuation.pdf) assignes only $.03 per gallon as the cost for military support of oil. Their argument is, in part, that changing things to reduce oil usage by 1% would have virtually no impact on military presence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
977 Posts
Most government studieis don't include military support. The relevant literature
and government rule-making have often assumed these costs to
be nonlinear and coupled with other US strategic objectives, and
they are often omitted from gasoline externality analyses.
Of course they don't include military support, due to capture by the energy industry. But without having to maintain freedom of the seas, access to the mideast and other oil-producing regions, or act as the "world's policeman", the $600B+ military budget could be reduced by 1/3 to 1/2 and still provide for adequate security of US home territory. I think that $300B should be offset by gas taxes and/or oil import tariffs. Let Europe, Asia, etc. provide for their own security, WWII has been over for over 60 years, and the cold war for 20.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top