Claim: Putting a price tag on the 2°C climate target no more expensive than fossil fuels

Here are some posts from the past (on WUWT) wrt subsidies:
================

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/08/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-86/
Fossil Fuel Subsidies: Connie Hedegaard, the EU Commissioner for Climate Action, has an essay demanding that countries stop subsidizing fossil fuels. She states: “According to the IEA, fossil-fuel subsidies rose by almost 30%, to $523 billion, in 2011. Meanwhile, the UN Environment Program reports that global investment in renewable energy totaled only $257 billion in 2011.”
Ms Hedegaard fails to state that the IEA study she cites shows the vast bulk of fossil fuel subsidies occur in developing countries, not in developed Western nations. In descending order, the five countries with the greatest fossil fuel subsidies are: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, India and China. The omission is all too typical among Western green bureaucrats and Ms. Hedegaard’s logic is far from daunting. Should a western country subsidize expensive, unreliable wind and solar because Iran subsidies gasoline? Please see Article #3 and link under Communicating Better to the Public – Exaggerate, or be Vague?
HaroldW says:
June 22, 2010 at 10:33 am
there are some subsidies, but they are actually really small.
1: royalties paid to foreign countries and states are credited for tax purposes…. as it should be.
if you paid for raw material, it has be considered as expense.
2: research credit that is available to ALL INDUSTRIES is available to oil&gas. there is nothing special here.
3: govt pays poor people for heat. that is welfare. not a subsidy to oil&gas. That money can be used for electric heat, even if it is hydro electric or other “renewable” source.
4: investment credits available to everyone is available to oil&gas. where is the subsidy there?
——————
Jeremy says:
September 26, 2011 at 12:00 pm
U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., is proposing to end what he says are $4 billion a year in tax subsidies to the biggest oil companies.”
Firstly, all Oil Companies pay taxes on earnings just like any corporation. According to data found in the Standard & Poor’s Compustat North American Database, the industry’s 2009 net income tax expenses — essentially their effective marginal income tax rate — averaged 41 percent, compared to 26 percent for the S&P Industrial companies. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) concludes that, as an additional part of their tax obligation, the major energy-producing companies paid or incurred over $280 billion of income tax expenses between 2006 and 2008.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/25/the-truth-about-americas-oil-gas-companies-part-i/ .
Secondly, according to the ONRR, annual revenues from federal onshore and offshore (OCS) mineral leases are one of the federal government’s largest sources of non-tax revenue. In 2010, Royalty Revenue amounted to around $8 Billion
http://www.onrr.gov/
————–
Luke says:
September 26, 2011 at 10:44 am
Most of those $4.0 billion in “subsidies” are not specific to the oil & gas industry. They break down as follows:
$1.7 billion in Domestic Manufacturing Credits: Applies to all production companies equally. A reward for creating/leaving the jobs in the US economy. You can argue whether or not they can move this production from the US, since the oil is located here, but it is clear that they can move the exploration equipment to anywhere in the world and ship the oil in. There is no requirement that oil used domestically must be produced in the US. So given that, what other industries should we strip this credit from?
$1.0 billion in % depletion allowance: Applies specifically to the oil and gas industry as a mechanism for capital recovery. It takes the place of depreciating the assets in the ground. Of course we don’t like to talk about the dark side of this one, which is when oil prices are lower for a sustained period of time, it acts like an anti-subsidy, so this one can cut both ways and at time has. Easy solution is to use capital base instead of income. Over the long haul though, I doubt this equals $1.0 billion a year. Just $1.0 billion a year in the current price environment.
$0.9 billion in foreign tax credit: This one again, applies equally to all. The dodgy part with this is classification of royalty payments as income taxes. Some foreign governments have converted royalty payments to income taxes, allowing for greater deductibility under US tax law. This, however, is not unique to the oil industry. So again, who else would you like to strip this one from?
$0.8 billion in intangible drilling costs: This one is specific to the oil and gas industry. This however is not a subsidy. Period. Exclamation Point! At best, this is a shifting of tax payments to later years. It allows the oil company to deduct their exploration expenses immediately. When this rule was enacted, it actually made sense because 90% of those expenses were written off in the first year anyway because of the abysmal hit rate for new wells, as opposed to the alternative which is adding it to the depreciation base for a new well. Now that the hit rate is much better, maybe it’s time to rethink the break, but it will not provide an $0.8 billion dollar annual windfall. It might provided a short term difference, but after 4-5 years under the new rules, you’d be pretty much back to the same annual number for “tax breaks” resulting from intangible drilling costs.
—————–
chris y says:
September 26, 2011 at 9:31 am
“U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., is proposing to end what he says are $4 billion a year in tax subsidies to the biggest oil companies.”
That $4B amounts to 1.6 cents per gallon of gasoline.
Did Schumer also propose an end to Federal, state and local gasoline taxes to ‘even the playing field’?
Did Schumer also propose an equivalent tax on solar and wind energy to ‘even the playing field?’
—————
Catcracking says:
December 3, 2011 at 7:20 am
One favorites of Pelosi is the reduction in royalities that was set up during the Clinton Administration to give companies an incentive to drill in deep water offshore in the Gulf when oil prices were low. Royalities are still paid but circa 20 % less. It was a good business deal for both sides at the time and improved for the drillers as oil prices rose. So now many of the tax and spend crowd want to change the contract and threaten those who refuse to comply with blackballing them from biding on new leases. How else can they make renewable energy sources look competitive?
Another item frequently referenced is the accelerated write off of capital expenses to encourage investment and boost the economy that is offered to every other business.
A third item is the foreign tax credits offered to all companies that bring foreign earnings back to the US.
—————
Janice says:
December 3, 2011 at 7:36 am
There is a hidden subsidy for both solar and wind power, one that could easily be avoided, but never will be because it is not politically expedient. The subsidy is the amount of money it takes to remove solar and wind farms once the parent company abandons them. It usually winds up being public money that is used, since the parent companies usually go bankrupt and are dissolved. It could easily be avoided if the parent companies were forced to post a bond equal to the amount it would take to remove the equipment, and restore the area. And that is a subsidy which coal and oil do not enjoy, because they are forced to remediate their mining and drilling sites.
Roy UK says:
December 5, 2012 at 8:33 am
@Alexandre 7.47am
Statement before the Senate Finance Committee
Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources, and Infrastructure March 27, 2012
FY2010 Electricity Production Subsidies and Support per megawatt-hour
(year 2010 dollars)
Natural Gas, Petroleum Liquids 0.63
Coal (pulverized) 0.64
Hydroelectric 0.84
Biomass 2.00
Nuclear 3.10
Geothermal 12.50
Wind 52.48
Solar 968.00
So subsidies per MWh to Wind and Solar are 100 – 1500 times the cost of subsidies to the Big oil. You didn’t really think your question through did you?
Steve Keohane says:
December 5, 2012 at 8:38 am
Alexandre says:December 5, 2012 at 7:47 am
I’d like to know where the Heartland Institute stands in the issue of fossil fuel subsidies. You know, being non-Big Oil and all…

According to the link you provided $58B was paid globally in so called oil subsidies. In 2004, according to energy.gov, we in the USA used 140 billion gallons of gasoline, for which $70B in taxes at the pump was collected. And don’t for get the corporate tax on the wholesale sales, and the taxes paid by the oil employees to make the gasoline, etc. So where is the subsidy? Your so-called oil subsidies are smoke and mirrors, nothing more.
John M says:
December 5, 2012 at 9:11 am
Steve Keohane says:
December 5, 2012 at 8:38 am
Regarding the whining about fossil fuel “subsidies”, it would be interesting to see Alexendre’s opinion on these “subsidies” listed in his source:
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (Petroleum) : 336 Million
Fuel-Tax Exemptions for Farmers: 1 Billion (that’s a B)
Strategic Petroleum Reserves: 1 Billion (Hell, the way that one’s been used, it should be charged back to the DNC as a campaign contribution)
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (Nat Gas): 1.7 Billion (that’s a B too)
Credit for Investment in Clean-Coal Facilities: 370 Million
Amortisation of Certain Pollution-Control Facilities: 200 Million
Jeez, maybe they ought to count food stamps as a fossil fuel subsidy too, since they are used to buy food produced by those farmers who get those huge Fossil Fuel tax exemptions, or allow poor people to spend more to fill their tanks.
ralfellis says:
March 6, 2014 at 11:09 pm
Another Geologist’s Take says: March 6, 2014 at 11:31 am
The analysis to be fair needs also to consider the generous subsidies that the oil, natural gas and coal industries get from our governments. They are substantial and have been around for decades.
_______________________________________
Absolute tosh.
In fact, that is tosh of the century.
Those are not subsidies for the oil industry, they are investments.
In reality, UK government finances depend in a great part on the huge taxes that they levy on oil and gas products. Thus they know that if they INVEST a little money to open a new and difficult oil/gas field, they will get their money back in spades when the product comes on-stream.
With renewables, the government subsidises the infrastructure, and then CONTINUES TO SUBSIDISE the end product (electricity) through the Renewable Obligation Certificates – which are a shadow taxation scheme levied on your electric bills.
In summary, the oil and gas industrues get no net subsidy, because their production pays back taxes that are greater than the subsidy BY SEVERAL ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE. They are net contributors to the government purse. In fact, many governments around the world would be bankrupt within the year, were it not for the huge profits from oil and gas.
Steve from Rockwood says:
March 7, 2014 at 6:07 am
The IMF introduces the concept of “corrective taxes” for such things as CO2 emissions ($25/ton). These are a major part of their subsidy estimates. In fairness to the IMF they appear to lay these subsidies at the foot of government while you place them at the door of the oil companies.
Mario Lento says:
December 6, 2012 at 3:17 pm
I found this goldmine of information on total subsidies. Does anyone have any comments on the validity of it? I could not connect to some of the links to the source references.

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/hardfacts-uploads/NJI_IER_HardFacts_ALLpages_20120423_v8.pdf
[hard-headed, anti-green, 73 pages, not much on subsidies per se

“To limit climate change to 2° Celsius, low-carbon energy options will need additional investments of about US $800 billion a year globally from now to mid-century, according to a new study published in the journal Climate Change Economics. But much of that capital could come from shifting subsidies and investments away from fossil fuels and associated technologies. Worldwide, fossil subsidies currently amount to around $500 billion per year.”
We still have people out there who believe that by some magic of spending even more money on expensive and often failed renewable sources such as wind and solar they will provide the energy level currently enjoyed by using fossil fuels. That is not going to happen unless Europe goes back to the middle ages. Did they not learn anything from Spain and Greece economic problems.
Also the article is disingenuous since as others have already pointed out, there are insignificant subsidies for oil in the US. Note the reference is global where countries like Venezuela where the subsidies go to the poor people who could not afford $3.50 gasoline. Also China subsidies oil so that their industry can grow and sell cheap goods. Does anyone in their right mind really believe that these countries are going to kill their economies and divert their “subsidies” to build expensive “renewable”, expensive energy sources?
Another point the fossil fuel business pays huge taxes throughout the world including exorbitant motor fuel tax throughout Europe and massive taxes and royalties to the US Treasuries..
I doubt that this is included in the economic analysis in any way.

So we will be using that same amount of money to subsidize non-fossil instead of fossil fuel. Okay. But the overall price will still be higher because it is more expensive to produce non-fossil fuel. If we change to non-fussil fuel here are your choices:
1. Inflation will ensue as wages must rise to compensate for more expensive fuel in order to maintain standard of living.
2. The standard of living will decrease for middle class and lower if wages do not increase.
3. The upper middle class will likely reduce buying high-energy sucking leisure products, thus taking a bite out of manufacturing jobs.
4. Even more manufactuing jobs will go elsewhere because other countries will be able to make stuff cheaper using fossil fuel.
We win how?