Brown-to-Green Report: “G20 nations still led by fossil fuel industry”… Because fossil fuels are good for people.

Guest slam-dunk by David Middleton

G20 nations still led by fossil fuel industry, climate report finds

Coal, oil and gas subsidies risking rise in global temperatures to 3.2C, well beyond agreed Paris goal

Jonathan Watts

Wed 14 Nov 2018

Climate action is way off course in all but one of the world’s 20 biggest economies, according to a report that shows politicians are paying more heed to the fossil fuel industry than to advice from scientists.

Among the G20 nations 15 reported a rise in emissions last year, according to the most comprehensive stock-take to date of progress towards the goals of the Paris climate agreement.

The paper, by the global partnership Climate Transparency, found 82% of energy in these countries still being provided by coal, oil and gas, a factor which has relied on an increase of about 50% in subsidies over the past 10 years to compete with increasingly cheap wind, solar and other renewable energy sources.

The G20 nations spent $147bn (£114bn) on subsidies in 2016, although they pledged to phase them out more than 10 years ago.

[…]

Britain has made the fastest transition, with a 7.7% decline in the use of fossil fuels between 2012 and 2015, but the report warned that this could stall in the years ahead because the government had cut support for feed-in tariffs, energy efficiency and zero-carbon homes.

[…]

The UN climate talks in Katowice, Poland, in December –the COP24 conference – will start a two-year process for governments to deliver on their commitments to reduce emissions. Although there are national leaders hostile to tackling climate change, such as in the US and Brazil, there is still hope they will be open to taking their share of the responsibility.

Christiana Figueres, former executive secretary of the UN framework convention on climate change, said: “Global emissions need to peak in 2020. The Brown-to-Green report provides us with an independent stock-take on where we stand now. This is valuable information for countries when they declare their contribution in 2020.”

The Grauniad

  • “Britain has made the fastest transition, with a 7.7% decline in the use of fossil fuels between 2012 and 2015” triggering the most excess winter deaths since 1976.
  • “Although there are (only two) national leaders hostile to” killing people in a futile Gorebal War Against Weather, “such as in the US and Brazil, there is still hope” that the rest of the world will opt not to force their people freeze in the dark..
  • “Christiana Figueres, former executive secretary of the UN framework convention on climate change, said: “Global emissions need to peak in 2020. The Brown-to-Green report provides us with”…

The Brown-to-Green report is FRACKING hilarious.

The Global Stocktake established in Article 14 of the Paris Agreement aims to “assess the collective progress” towards the agreed goals: 1) holding the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C and pursuing efforts to limit the increase to 1.5°C; 2) increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience; and 3) making all finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate-resilient development.

At the moment, we are far away from taking the action needed to achieve these three goals. Current nationally determined contributions (NDCs) would lead to a global temperature increase of around 3.2°C.

[…]

Brown-to-Green Report 2018

Ok… So we’re supposed to swallow a $240/gal tax on gasoline and spend $122 trillion to avoid 1.7 °C (3.2 minus 1.5) of warming over the next 80 years? Really?  How can anyone even publish something like this and expect to be taken seriously?

Particularly since we are already on a pathway to less than 2 °C of warming…

Figure 1. Figure 1.4 from NCA4 Vol. I with HadCRUT4 and UAH 6.0 overlaid.  Having Fun With the Fourth National Climate Assessment Report.

How bad does the Brown-to-Green Report say it will be in the United  States of America?

 

Figure 2. “The US’s exposure to climate impacts.”

The “exposure” is entirely qualitative (AKA useless, pointless, unverifiable, unaccountable, etc.) and many of the components are contradictory.

Figure 2. Climate change to have a high impact on food supply (cereal yields), with no increase in malnutrition.

Which is it?  Virtually no impact on malnutrition?  Or a high impact on food supply?

Figure 3.  High impact on annual run-off *and* low impact on annual groundwater recharge… Aeuhhh????

Does “high impact” on annual run-off mean too much or too little run off?  Since the impact on groundwater recharge is low, my guess is that it’s too much run-off.  In which case, we need to build more dams, like we do in Texas.

Figure 4. How Texas handles too much run-off. Texas PDSI (NOAA) and water storage capacity (Water For Texas).

WTF is “ecosystem service”?

Figure 5. WTF?

 

Firstly… If there are biomes occupying our country, we need to kick them the Hell out, like we should have done with those #Occupy Wall Street A-holes.  Secondly… Look at a map of the world.  99% of the oceans and their marine biodiversity aren’t in these United States.  I refuse to use /Sarc tags when it should be obvious that I’m being sarcastic… I only added this because I figured someone would try to argue against kicking biomes out of the US or equating them to the #Occupy A-holes.

Figure 6. Where are the heat waves they’ve been promising?

Low impact of sea level rise on coastlines, no increase in heatwaves… Win-win.

Moderate impacts on flooding and hydropower generation capacity… WTF? Will it only rain where the dams aren’t located?

Now, let’s look at some “real” numbers.  As we can see from figure 1, “business-as-usual” falls between RCP2.6 and RCP4.5.

 

Figure 7. CMIP5 Global Climate Change Viewer, United States, RCP4.5. The model mean is +2.8 °C. The average July temperature in the U.S. would increase from 21.6 ±0.7 to 24.4 ±0.6 °C.

  • 21.6 °C + 0.7 °C = 22.3 °C
  • 24.4 °C – 0.6 °C = 23.8 °C
  • 23.8 °C – 22.3 °C = 1.5 °C

1.5 °C is within the margin of error of “business-as-usual.”

The closest model to reality projects an unnoticeable change in U.S temperatures and no change in precipitation.

Figure 8. INM-CM4, RCP4.5.

So… We can see that there simply isn’t a problem that needs to be solved.

What solution to this non-problem is proposed by the Brown-to-Green Report?

End fossil fuel subsidies.

Figure 9. G20 COUNTRIES PROVIDED US$147 BILLION SUBSIDIES TO COAL, OIL AND GAS IN 2016. ONLY CANADA AND FRANCE GENERATE MORE PUBLIC REVENUES THROUGH EXPLICIT CARBON PRICING THAN THEY SPEND ON FOSSIL FUEL SUBSIDIES.

The Brown-to-Green Report claims that the U.S. government subsidizes fossil fuels to the tune of nearly $10 billion per year:

Figure 10. G20 fossil fuel subsidies.

Government entities generate more revenue just taxing ExxonMobil than the U.S. government supposedly pays out in total fossil fuel subsidies to the entire FRACKING Climate Wrecking Industry!

Total taxes on the Corporation’s income statement were $31.3 billion in 2017, an increase of $0.3 billion from 2016. Income tax expense, both current and deferred, was a credit of $1.2 billion compared to a credit of $0.4 billion in 2016, with the U.S. tax reform impact of $5.9 billion partially offset by higher pre-tax income. The effective tax rate, which is calculated based on consolidated company income taxes and ExxonMobil’s share of equity company income taxes, was 5 percent compared to 13 percent in the prior year due primarily to the impact of U.S. tax reform. Total other taxes and duties of $32.5 billion in 2017 increased $1.1 billion.

ExxonMobil 2017 Financial Statements and Supplemental Information

While morons, like Bernie Sanders, would zero-in on the income tax credit of $1.2 billion, this is after the company had already paid out $31 billion in total taxes.  In 2017, ExxonMobil generated $244.3 billion in gross revenue.  They spent, including taxes, $224.5 billion to generate that revenue.  Their net after-tax income attributable to ExxonMobil was $19.7 billion.  Government entities made $1.50 for every $1.00 that ExxonMobil earned in net profits.

So, government entities generated about $3 in tax revenue, just from ExxonMobil, for every $1 the Brown-to-Green Report claims that the U.S government paid out in fossil fuel subsidies.  And the Brown-to-Green Report wildly exaggerates the fossil fuel subsidies.

The most recent U.S. Energy Information Administration report on energy subsidies puts the number at less than $4 billion. (Should have been: The 2015  U.S. Energy Information Administration report on energy subsidies puts the number at less than $4 billion.  EIA issued a new report earlier this year).

Energy 2

Figure 11. Federal subsidies by energy source 2010 and 2013 (million 2013 US dollars), U.S. Energy Information Administration.

 

The solar and wind subsidies are truly massive in $/Btu.

 

Energy Subsidies3

Figure 12. Subsidies per unit of energy by source ($/mmBtu), U.S. Energy Information Administration. (Corrected for error in Geothermal Btu shortly after publication.)

Most of the Federal subsidies for oil & gas (96%), coal (71%) and nuclear power (67%) consist of tax breaks.  The subsidies for oil & gas aren’t really even subsidies.  These are standard tax deductions and depreciation of assets. Solar and wind subsidies are weighted toward direct expenditures of tax dollars.

Energy Subsidies5

Figure 13. Subsidies by type for wind, solar, nuclear, coal and natural gas & petroleum liquids, U.S. Energy Information Administration.  Table ES2.

 

Conclusions

If ain’t broke, don’t fix it.  There is no reasonable analysis that demonstrates that the potential harm from anthropogenic climate change in the future justifies any significant expense today.

 

Figure 12. Social Cost of Carbon = Zero-point-zero using a 7% discount rate. “As a default position, OMB Circular A-94 states that a real discount rate of 7 percent should be used as a base-case for regulatory analysis. The 7 percent rate is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of return to private capital in the U.S. economy…”  Discounting Away the Social Cost of Carbon: The Fast Lane to Undoing Obama’s Climate Regulations

It’s a fossil fueled world and that isn’t going to change any time in the near future, much less on a UN time table.

Figure 13. “Yeah, baby, yeah!” — Austin Powers, International Man of Mystery

Advertisements

73 thoughts on “Brown-to-Green Report: “G20 nations still led by fossil fuel industry”… Because fossil fuels are good for people.

  1. It does appear that the report is being deliberately deceptive on “subsidies” for fossil fuels. Ordinary tax and business accounting is not equivalent to transfer payments.

    • FOSSIL FUELS ARE THE SUBSIDISERS: Without the government revenues from fossil fuels industries plus the government revenues that are provided by the various industries of other kinds that are powered by energy that’s derived from fossil fuels, there would be no money with which to subsidize the so-called “renewables,” (Unless, of course, you plan to use magic money that The Federal Reserve conjures out of their magic hole in the air to pay for governments.)

  2. I would like for someone who is concerned about fossil fuels harming civilization to explain to me how they see the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources happening.

    Take me through the steps.

    • Here’s roughly how I see the steps:

      (1) Isolated regions of the world introduce wind and solar, with appropriate fossil-fuel back-ups for the slow times.

      (2) More regions jump on the bandwagon, increasing the number of solar and wind farms, with appropriate fossil-fuel back ups.

      (3) Eventually, the whole world has switched to solar and wind, with appropriate fossil-fuel back-ups.

      (4) Isolated regions realize that there are problems getting the level of reliability to which they have been accustomed, even with the back-ups, and that fossil fuel is STILL required to back up the renewable sources of energy, and that the overall hassle of having tried to convert was just an exercise in making a child’s dream come true, and that it cost more than it could ever possibly be worth.

      (5) More regions jump on this new bandwagon of stark realization, as the bitching and moaning reaches epic levels.

      (6) Eventually, the whole world is bitching and moaning about how it just doesn’t work.

      (7) The whole world of stupid leaders finally realize that they were stupid, and they have an awakening that ushers in a new energy future matching the reality of modern civilization’s expectations.

      (8) Historians have a field day, condemning the “Anthropocene” as the most stupid geological age ever.

      (9) Dinosaur DNA frozen in Antarctica is discovered, brought into a warm lab, where it is revived and engineered into its fully realized organism, which propagates, multiplies, gets out of hand, and eats all humans to extinction.

      (10) Space aliens visit the Earth, conquer the wild landscape, and start pondering why the human race went extinct.

      Okay, I got a little carried away with #9 and #10, but it adds to the force of how ridiculous I currently believe the dream of “renewable energy” is.

    • The climate change is harming cannibalistic cultures, a holistic part of human civilization. They have to preserved at any price.

    • explain to me how they see the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources happening

      Easy
      1) Stop using fossil fuels
      2) magic happens
      3) Start getting all your power from renewables.

      it just that no one has figured out how to make step 2 happen so we just need to give the green blob more money until it gets sorted

  3. I thought the Wind subsidies / BTU would be higher. Solar subsidies however are huge and increasing at an unprecedented rate. Clearly worse that we thought.

  4. So when do they start addressing the largest CO2 emitter in the world? That’s the elephant that never gets mentioned. If it hasn’t become obvious to everyone, China is the wealth redistribution collection point of the AGW debacle and openly states to increasing their emissions for decades …. until they get their nuclear energy infrastructure in place and then they will be flouted as the leader while the rest of the world’s industry collapses and living standards decline. You don’t have to believe in a conspiracy theory to see this writing on the wall.

    • Because… China enjoys being the “Last Third World Empire” to gloriously lift itself up by its bootstraps. It pays dividends eternal to not strut forth and claim “First World” status, for China. She can mine as much coal as she likes (and to statistically get away with burning more, import a bunch), and burn it to power industry and civilization for as long has her coal seams hold out.

      Millions of tons a day “fall off the trains” on the way from mine-to-mill. These are burned by every last mom’n’pop household and business that can “get away with it”. Oh, the gub’mint apparatchiks spring visits with some regularity, and the precious (and expensive) “other fuel” is rapidly put into play so that the ostensible “see, we’re doing the right thing, comrade” assessment can be made. But then within hours, its back to straight coal again.

      Because it is compellingly cheap.

      Just saying,
      GoatGuy

  5. “The “exposure” is entirely qualitative (AKA useless, pointless, unverifiable, unaccountable, etc.) and many of the components are contradictory.”

    So my qualitative “feeling” it’s all worthless garbage is perfectly acceptable? I don’t even have to go quantitative like “99%” garbage? Love it!!!

  6. As Marcon Antoinette and his inner circle are slowly beginning to realize, this faux green climate hype has real costs and problems. So far the climate consensus has gotten away with silencing skeptics and filling their monologue with nonsense like what is highlighted in this post.
    That climate monologue is long overdue to be properly challenged.
    Skeptics have been correct all along

  7. “Britain has made the fastest transition, with a 7.7% decline in the use of fossil fuels between 2012 and 2015,…”

    Total smoke and mirrors. Most of that decline is due to conversion from coal to wood pellets, which emit more CO2 than coal. But because of an EU loophole that classifies wood pellets as renewable, those CO2 emissions are not included in total UK emissions.

    • True.
      ‘ but the report warned that this could stall in the years ahead because the government had cut support for feed-in tariffs,’
      The ECJ has also ruled that government support designed to guarantee supply is illegal and has therefore been stopped. Unless another mechanism is created, renewables will lead to blackouts.

      • It’s worse, because the Brexit In Name Only that May has “negotiated” still leaves the ECJ sitting above all UK law.

  8. In 30 years of increasingly hysterical doomsaying about climate, all the greens have come up with is: “I’ve got a swell idea! Let’s STOMP THE POOR.”

    Wind & solar are sentimental favorites, heavily subsidized to hide costs, haven’t solved the problem of intermittency, and generate a drop in the electric bucket in consequence.

    If greenies were serious about CO2 reductions, they’d back nuclear and hydro, but they oppose them, too. The perfect remains the enemy of the good.

  9. Because… China enjoys being the “Last Third World Empire” to gloriously lift itself up by its bootstraps. It pays dividends eternal to not strut forth and claim “First World” status, for China. She can mine as much coal as she likes (and to statistically get away with burning more, import a bunch), and burn it to power industry and civilization for as long has her coal seams hold out.

    Millions of tons a day “fall off the trains” on the way from mine-to-mill. These are burned by every last mom’n’pop household and business that can “get away with it”. Oh, the gub’mint apparatchiks spring visits with some regularity, and the precious (and expensive) “other fuel” is rapidly put into play so that the ostensible “see, we’re doing the right thing, comrade” assessment can be made. But then within hours, its back to straight coal again.

    Because it is compellingly cheap.

    Just saying,
    GoatGuy

  10. More reservoirs, especially in the Forested areas would be a great first step.
    Small reservoirs of about 30 – 50 acres and spaced about a mile apart. This would allow for animal drinking water as well as potential Fire suppression supplies since Wildfires are predicted to increase

  11. As a recovering accountant the word “subsidy” always confuses me.

    “Most of the Federal subsidies for oil & gas (96%), coal (71%) and nuclear power (67%) consist of tax breaks.”

    When I see the word tax break I usually think of a reduced tax rate or a tax credit which benefits the recipient (individual or business). Different depreciation methods are just a way to lesson or increase the rate of tax payment but do NOT change the overall payment of taxes like a tax credit or reduced tax rate.

    • Yep.

      We can write off geological & geophysical expenditures as expenses in the year of the expenditure rather than having to capitalize them and recover the costs over time. We can do the same thing with intangible drilling expenses. Tangible drilling costs (like casing) still have to be capitalized.

      The much railed-against percentage depletion allowance is just a method of writing off the costs of drilling and producing oil & gas wells. Percentage depletion generally isn’t available to “Big Oil.” They have to use cost depletion. In some cases, percentage depletion might enable you write off more than cost depletion.

      All businesses can write off their expenses. It’s just that fossil fuel extraction has different names and different procedures for writing off the costs of developing “wasting assets.” Minerals are wasting assets because the value of the asset declines over time.

    • Yup, it’s just a shell game of definitions and words. They call anything that results in paying slightly less taxes a subsidy.

  12. Up here in Canuckastan, our dear leader is giving away vast amounts of money to despot countries and gender issues. He is giving away so much money to buy his seat in the UN that he needs more so is pushing for a carbon tax under the guise of saving the world. The liberals and their leader our embarrassing prime minister Trudeau 2.0 is sinking our country in debt because of his idealist views.

    Our national news outlet the CBC funded by the government, taxpayer money, is very pro liberal. Everyday they publish some “climate change, C02” alarm to soften up the sheep for the tax. Oh by the way the liberal government is giving away 500 million to deserving struggling private media which will make them even more pro liberal biased.

    Another thing the MSM up here hardly cover the riots in France and if they do no mention of it started protesting carbon tax. Oh ya and they definitely do not mention the people in the streets in France chanting we need a Trump. The MSM and Liberals up here hate Trump with a passion.

    I am on my why to Canadian Tire to buy a yellow vest.

    • Oh ya and they definitely do not mention the people in the streets in France chanting we need a Trump.

      That’s remarkable, actually.

      That one of our most prickly — but loved — European allies has the streets pining for Trump, is quite the think-stopper. You sit back with that rewarmed third cup of coffee, and think, “wait, what? The prickly French are wishing for a leader to be Trump-like to sideline their Long-on-Socialism’s-Ideals Macron?”

      Just saying: this long, long dalliance with feelings-over-logic-and-reason socialist pandering on the international stage is beginning to cause ordinary people to wish for something different, something closer to the balanced rhetoric-and-polity of yesteryear.

      Trump’s real-politik.

      About as real as it gets. So real that the Swamp Creatures can’t stand it.

      GoatGuy

    • I’m with you nc!!! My wife yesterday had to ask what’s going on in France – because she only listens to the Canadian Brainwashing Corp.

    • @nc – get after those parasites. Left to their own agenda, they always end up killing the host, and then moving on to find another one. And no one is going to step into your internal affairs and do it for you.
      The government will tax and spend as far as the public does not push back. It is human nature, when you have a bureaucracy of “public servants” that would choose to be “public masters”, if the public allows it.
      If you start early it can be done through debate, discussion, education, and voting. If you wait too long blood will spill. And there is no guarantee on who will be left standing when one side backs down.

      • It is not easy trying to push back, the ignorance is overwhelming. I have lost friends in trying to explain the facts about climate and the politics of. They actually get all red in the face, voices increase its quite amazing. Their sources of information are CNN, Colbert, CBC even saturday night live, its just amazing. Trudeau got voted in because of his nice hair, that is not a joke. Its our liberal left uncompromising education system that really scares me.

        • Common sense is not common anymore. I live in the suburbs of a major city. People move out of the city into our area, because the city is rampant with crime, the taxes are high, the cost of living is high, and the schools are terrible. We don’t have those problems in the suburbs.
          And the new arrivals vote for the same policies they had in the cities that produced the problems they are running away from, because that is what they have been taught in the city, and they never had to think about it before.
          All you can do is talk about the system changing the “incentives” for people. People make decisions based on the various incentives available to them. Problems occur when the government starts changing the incentives. Society is better served by people doing what is best for them, not doing what is best for the government. What is best for the government is consolidating power and controlling an ever larger percentage of the wealth created by the private sector.

      • Below I offer a handy word to have available when talking about governments in general and about leftist politicians who control governments in particular:

        A parasitoid (re: government) is an organism (organization) that lives in close association with its host and at the host’s expense, and which sooner or later kills the host. Parasitoidism is one of six major evolutionary strategies within parasitism, distinguished by the fatal prognosis for the host, which makes the strategy close to predation.

        Are we there yet?

    • https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/18/trump-is-right-to-question-climate-change-causes/#comment-2496466

      Gentlemen, you are correct.

      Eliminate fossil fuels and most people in the developed world would be dead within a few months.

      The destructiveness of warmist scientists and politicians is astonishing – these villains and fools should not even opine on energy, let alone set energy policy.

      The policies of these climate clowns are so destructive that one has to wonder if this is their true intention. Many of them say they want to reduce world population; well, their energy policies will certainly do that.

      Cheap, abundant reliable energy is the lifeblood of society – it IS that simple.

      We have known these facts since forever, and published them in 2002 (below).

      Regarding energy policy, we are governed by scoundrels and imbeciles.

      Regards, Allan

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/29/un-appointed-climate-science-team-demands-the-end-of-capitalism/#comment-2442425
      [excerpt]

      Energy is my area of expertise and I have a very successful predictive track record. I have two engineering degrees and have studied this subject for many decades.

      Fully 85% of global primary energy is fossil fuels, and the rest is hydro and nuclear. Green energy would be near-zero except for massive wasted subsidies and use mandates. Only a few places have enough hydro to provide their needs, and greens hate hydro. The only practical alternative is nuclear, and the greens hate nuclear too.

      Without fossil fuels, most people in the developed world would just freeze and starve to death. This means you and your family.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/15/winners-announced/#comment-73788
      [excerpts from 2009 and 2002]

      Re successful predictions, here is one that the Europeans should have heeded, as cold sets in and their inadequate alternative energy systems fail to keep them from freezing this winter.

      This disastrous scenario was predicted by Sallie Baliunas, Tim Patterson and me in September 2002:

      Originally published at at:
      http://www.apega.ca/members/publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
      Now at:
      http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/KyotoAPEGA2002REV1.pdf

      “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

      Regards, Allan

  13. I think it’s telling that they use the metric of “use of fossil fuels” rather than CO2 emissions. In the U.S. (the country I live in and, hence, the country I’m primarily concerned with…as in, all y’all’s countries ain’t none of my business) haven’t we reduced our emissions from XX date due to a gradual switch from coal to natgas?

    So, if they used emissions to define progress, they’d have to – gasp – give credit to the U.S. But, it’s almost as if they’re really not primarily concerned with simply preserving the delicate and fragile climate system through a reduction in this toxic pollutant. It’s almost like they have another goal. Almost.

    rip

  14. The Last Picture Show drought on the Fig. 4 graph shows it was temporarily interrupted, but the early 60s went back in that direction. The Manntastic drought approached the Movie, but was very short. Texas bay salinities went higher than they had been since the 50s. There was speculation based on environmental effects, that the Movie version actually started in the 30s, temporarily broken, but for a longer time than after the late 50s floods. The Movie drought period was variously given, often 1947-1957(winter only), 54-56 the bad part when the most cattle died. Even with the Manntastic drought it has clearly gotten wetter (depending on start date?) overflowing lately the dams.

    It is interesting that Texas killing freezes of 1940, 1947, 1951, 1962, 1983, 1989 were around more during the drier periods. Ah, the correlations we can make with little data, but who’s predicting.

  15. Christiana Figueres; the one and same who has blatantly admitted it’s not about climate, it’s about re-distribution of wealth?! Why are we still talking about this? Please explain.

    • To be fair she has spent so much time in the air , on important first class travel , that perhaps she has got permanent jet lag ?

  16. Most of the so called subsidies on fossil fuels are depletion allowances which really arent subsidies. In any case the graph on subsidies per btu is the most telling. Subsidies on fossil fuels is just another BIG LIE of the green industry.

  17. From the internets:

    “[US] Federal fuel taxes raised $35.2 billion in Fiscal Year 2014, with $25.0 billion raised from gasoline taxes and $10.2 billion raised from taxes on diesel and special motor fuels”

    How much were those fossil fuel ‘subsidies’ again? If the US chooses to eliminate the ‘subsidies’ we’ll reduce the Federal Fuel taxes a commensurate amount right?

  18. Was the original document written in German or other language?

    “… biomes occupying the countries …

    We have practice making sense of things. When my grandmother said “Throw the cow over the fence some hay”, the cow got feed.
    Other than an academic, I do not know anyone that uses the term “biome”, and as David makes clear, the word choice, occupying, is wrong.

    Countries do have forests, grassland, and deserts, and such were used by Köppen in his initial classification of climates.

    • Normally David Middleton is a mild mannered geologist who likely drinks a lot of beer. Because that’s what geologists do. What threw him over the edge today? I figured it was the biome comment, a more complete quote is:

      If there are biomes occupying our country, we need to kick them the Hell out,…

      I learned about biomes back in high school biology, it’s a perfectly reasonable term from ecology. What would you use instead? Perhaps ecosystem, but that’s a more diffuse concept.

      Heck, even NASA is teaching children about biomes. Hmm, maybe we should kick them out!

      https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/experiments/biome

      I live in the temperate deciduous biome. If you don’t mind, I’d like to keep it here instead of kicking it out to DRAX to fuel their power plants.

      • “Normally David Middleton is a mild mannered geologist” as most geologists seem to be. Although see: Nick and the rock hammer.

        ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
        There is a Ponderosa Pine biome, although lots of articles do use the term ecosystem. There is also a shrub-steppe biome. The folks at the PNW National Laboratory call this an ecoregion (one word). On an Ecological Society of America site I see the terms “ecological system” and then “ecosystem” (one word).

        The ESA site has ecotone as (house + tension), or “a border zone, where ecological systems meet and mingle, sometimes forming a new and different community.”

        We live in the ecotone of Pondersoa Pine and shrub-steppe with, as far as I can tell no name of its own.

      • Now that I’m an old geologist, it’s mostly red wine or bourbon rather than beer… and I guess these keystrokes were wasted…

        I refuse to use /Sarc tags when it should be obvious that I’m being sarcastic… I only added this because I figured someone would try to argue against kicking biomes out of the US or equating them to the #Occupy A-holes.

  19. David,
    Thanks for the post, and especially for the charts of

    The most recent U.S. Energy Information Administration report on energy subsidies …

    I think I’ll make a print of these and put in my wallet, for the next time: “Here’s your copy.”

    Recall, Bill Engvall’s stand-up: Here’s your sign

  20. KATOWICE, POLAND Arnold Schwarzenegger says he wishes he could travel back in time like the cyborg he played in The Terminator so he could stop fossil fuels from being used. ” If we would’ve never started in that direction and used other technology we would be much better off,” the actor and former governor said Monday at the start of a UN climate conference in Poland. “The biggest evil is fossil fuels; it’s gasoline, it’s the natural gas,” he told conference delegates.
    schwarzenegger said that the U.S. was “still in” an international accord to curb global warming despite U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to walk away from the agreement, and called Trump “meshugge” – Yiddish for “crazy” – for abandoning the 2015 accord. The Associated Press.
    Methinks the anabolic steroids must have fried his brain. Bill

    • …..And I suspect that he is a “true believer” that someone — John D. Rockefeller, maybe — foisted petroleum products on the world when everyone was doing just fine using things like whale, seal and walrus blubber and hog grease (Or whole hogs).

      Doesn’t it make you feel kind of sad to realize that this ***** guy was elected twice to be the governor of the state of California? Is ‘ignorance’ the right word to use when someone ‘knows’ things that aren’t even remotely true?

  21. David,
    Your conclusion is missing one important point.
    If it is broke, then we should quit pretending it works.
    The subsidies for wind and solar are a poor investment for public money. When public money is used in a way that benefits a small minority of the public, it is a recipe for cronyism and “special deals” for contributions to political campaigns. Public money is supposed to be used for projects that benefit the public at large. Not fund companies that will then take the proceeds of government largess and use it to elect politicians that will reward the groups with more of our money. We need to get tax money out of the energy sector. If it is a good investment, then it will attract capital. The fact that “smart money” is not willing to invest, does NOT mean the government should waste public funds, on projects with a very low likelihood of success. And we are not getting a good “BTU for our Buck”!

  22. David:
    You show the following graph ….

    https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/energy-subsidies3c.png

    Interesting that you show comparison between the years 2010 an 2013.
    In which time subsidy ($/BTU) doubled for solar.
    The following shows in addition subsidies in 2016….

    https://www.justfacts.com/images/energy/direct_federal_energy_subsidies_production.png

    For which solar subsidy fell in turn to be ~ 1/3rd of that in 2010 and less than 1/6th of that in 2013.

    Is this correct?

    • It could be. My graph was from a 2017 post of mine, based on EIA’s 2015 report. Apparently they issued a new report this year.

      https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/

      This:

      The most recent U.S. Energy Information Administration report on energy subsidies puts the number at less than $4 billion.

      Should have been:

      The 2015 U.S. Energy Information Administration report on energy subsidies puts the number at less than $4 billion.

      I’ll add a note to the post, reflecting this.

      I copied that sentence directly from my 2017 post. The link now goes to the 2018 report.

      The “drop” in subsidies for solar is mostly due to the fact that 2009-2013 were during Obama’s porkulus program in which Federal spending went through the roof…

      I’ll dig the numbers out of the full report and see if they match this graph…

      • The FY2016 numbers actually reflect a negative subsidy for natural gas and petroleum liquids. They also indicate that the solar subsidy has “fallen” to $4.19/mmBtu. The subsidy for solar power is about the same as the wellhead price for natural gas.

        FY2016  Subsidies (millions)  Production (trill. Btu) $/mmBtu
        Solar $2,231                                        533  $       4.19
        Coal $1,262                                   14,807  $       0.09
        Nat. gas & pet. liquids ($773)                                   51,449  $    (0.02)
  23. “Christiana Figueres; the one and same who has blatantly admitted it’s not about climate, it’s about re-distribution of wealth?! Why are we still talking about this? Please explain.”

    She’s also the one who advocated a one world government modeled after communist China.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *