Introduction
In the ever-evolving discourse surrounding climate change and energy policy, few topics generate as much debate as the alleged subsidies for fossil fuels. Tilak Doshi’s incisive article sheds light on the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) recent claims regarding these subsidies, offering a critical examination of the figures and the motivations behind them.
The IMF’s Eye-Catching Headline
Legacy media, with its penchant for sensationalism, recently paraded a headline that would give even the most seasoned energy analyst pause: “Fossil fuels being subsidised at rate of $13 million a minute, says IMF”. Citing a staggering $7 trillion in support for fossil fuels in 2022, the claim is audacious, especially when juxtaposed against global expenditures on education and military.
“For those of us who have not completely given up on tracking legacy media headlines on climate issues due to the sheer noise-to-signal ratio, there was one recently that made even the most skeptical take notice.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdoshi/2023/09/06/energy-subsidy-shenanigans-the-green-imf-at-work/?sh=da9f26c4d89d
The Discrepancy in Estimates
The IMF’s figure starkly contrasts with estimates from other reputable institutions. The International Energy Agency (IEA) pegged global fossil fuel subsidies at a record $1.097 trillion in 2022, while the International Institute for Sustainable Development estimated them at $1.4 trillion for the G20 group.
“Why do these estimates vary? The differences in these estimates lie partly in varying methodologies employed to measure subsidies. They also reflect the inherently elastic nature of the subsidy concept.”
Understanding Subsidies: Not All Are Created Equal
Subsidies, in their essence, are government expenditures aimed at supporting specific sectors or demographics. They can be transparent, like price support for farmers, or opaque, favoring a particular industry or technology.
“A subsidy is government expenditure, in cash or kind (for example, a tax credit), in favor of households or firms as financial redistribution in the overall interest of the public.”
Deciphering the IMF’s “Subsidies”
The IMF’s classification of fossil fuel subsidies is intriguing. They differentiate between “explicit” subsidies, which refer to observable undercharging for fossil fuels, and “implicit” subsidies, which account for hypothesized costs of global warming and local air pollution.
“The fossil fuel subsidies identified by the IMF in its 2023 Update on Fossil Fuel Subsidies Data refer to “explicit” and “implicit” subsidies.”
The Flawed Logic of Implicit Subsidies
The IMF’s inclusion of “implicit” subsidies is a contentious point. By factoring in the costs of global warming, such as rising sea levels, extreme weather, and the spread of diseases, the IMF inflates the subsidy figure. However, this approach is problematic, as it doesn’t account for the positive externalities of fossil fuel use.
“While the IMF takes into account negative externalities in its measure of “efficient” fuel prices, it does not consider well-documented positive externalities of fossil fuel use in its report.”
The Greening Effect of Carbon Dioxide
One significant positive externality of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the greening of Earth’s vegetated lands. This phenomenon, which has been observed over the past 35 years, is largely attributed to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
“An important example of the positive externality of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the significant greening of a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.”
The IMF’s Shift in Mandate
Historically, the IMF’s primary role was to maintain global financial stability. However, in recent years, the institution has expanded its purview to include climate change, aligning itself with the climate agendas of various governments.
“But what is an institution set up to act as a financial watchdog and first responder to countries in financial crisis doing dishing out advice on climate change?”
The Dangers of Overreach
The IMF’s foray into environmental policy is concerning. By delving into areas outside its expertise, the institution risks undermining its credibility and the efficiency of international capital markets.
“Climate policy is clearly beyond the scope of any financial regulator’s expertise. Given the uncertainty within the climate science community itself, there is no reason to believe that the IMF can have any greater understanding of climate risks.”
Conclusion
Tilak Doshi’s article offers a compelling critique of the IMF’s claims regarding fossil fuel subsidies. By highlighting the discrepancies in subsidy estimates and the flawed logic behind the IMF’s methodology, Doshi underscores the need for a more nuanced and informed discussion on energy policy.
more nuanced and informed discussion
nonsense – it is a fraud & should be called out as such
Let’s parse the deceptive abuse of language by IMF and other climatists.
A subsidy would be when the government takes money that has been taxed, borrowed, or printed, and pays it to some company like Solyndra to do something that the market does not support. Often these subsidies subsidize technologies that do not exist and may never exist (and they say WE ignore the laws of physics.)
In contrast, a tax reduction is NOT a subsidy. A tax credit says an industry gets to keep more of its own money that it has produced selling a product people want and need in the free market.
There is a huge difference between a law that lets you keep more of your own money; and another law that actually gives you someone else’s money. The two are not the same thing.
Actually, the oil industry pays higher taxation rates than other industries and subsidizes the government with the billions it pays in taxes, not the other way around.
There are also billions more in economic benefit to the nation from the jobs they create and the increased mobility and productivity people enjoy by using our transportation system based on hydrocarbon fuels.
Of course the whole notion of implicit subsidies is non-sensical. Robert Lyman has a good analysis here:
https://financialpost.com/opinion/most-fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-not-subsidies
My synopsis:
https://rclutz.com/2023/09/07/imf-mad-hatters-notion-of-hydrocarbon-subsidies/
It is difficult to calculate government subsidies of fossil fuels, which vary a great deal from nation to nation.
In the US, we have about 40% of all lands are publicly owned, plus there are offshore areas that are controlled by the Federal government. The Federal and state governments lease some of those lands and offshore area for oil exploration and production. So the question is, are the fees charged for those leases comparable to what private land owners charge oil exploration and production companies, including charges for minerals (including oil and gas) extraction? It would take a pretty complicated economic study to determine if the governments are charging market rates or selling at a discount compared to private markets. Of course market values and prices change constantly.
Other countries run state owned oil production and refining enterprises rather than license private producers, and whatever it costs and whatever they sell the oil products for is much more difficult to put values on because of hidden costs and the fact that some nations openly subsidize oil and gas products.
It’s really an impossible thing to measure rationally.
The 40% of land isn’t publicly owned, it’s owned by the state, as it was in the Soviet Union. Mineral extraction on these lands is usually determined by auction, a method that is supposed to indicate the actual value of the lease. The cancellation of leases by the current administration accomplishes two things, establishing a baseline value for them and taking expected oil production out of the market. Environmental concerns are non-existent. There have been oil wells in Beverly Hills, CA for decades.
Claiming that a price difference between what is charged for access to oil production possibility and what might possibly be charged is a subsidy is pretty much the same as saying the lack of a 100% tax rate on just about any activity is an excise tax subsidy on every one of us.
Government leases in the US are auctioned. The prices paid are very much market prices, and the government takes care to ensure that bidders are well informed about the prospectivity of each block offered, so as to encourage competitive bidding for promising blocks. In fact, the process often leads to winner’s curse, where the winning bids are actually above the reasonable economic value of the lease. Several companies have ended up going bankrupt of the back of it.
If there is less information, it is usually over private land – particularly for the landowner, who usually suffers from information asymmetry, and thus probably undersells leases. Private landowners tend to rely more on royalties, where information is easily shared at the golf club on rates to expect etc. Government too adds royalties to its revenue sources.
Of course, at times government makes lease terms too harsh and bids evaporate.
The very definition of a subsidy has been blurred.
If a government gives money to manufacturers to produce a product or gives money to a buyer to purchase a product that is a clear subsidy.
In my mind depletion allowances are equivalent to depreciation allowed for all other industries including industrial wind or solar plants and are NOT subsidies. I could not tell from the article if the latter is included in their sum.
Of course “implicit” subsidies are nonsense.
Depreciation is the opposite of a subsidy.
The government is declaring that the cost of, say a building, is indeed a business expense. However unlike most business expenses, instead of deducting the full amount in the year it was incurred, the company has to spread that deduction over a number of years.
Now individuals with advanced degrees will argue till the cows come home as to what the best/optimal time period is for this deduction, however any economist will also tell you that money now is more valuable than money in the future.
By forcing companies to wait years until they can fully deduct their investments, they are costing businesses money. This is no subsidy.
Depletion allowances work the same way, with one difference. Depreciation usually occurs over a fixed period of time, while depletion allowances are based on the percent of the resource that has been extracted. IE mined or pumped.
Redefining the meaning of words is the Left’s favorite pastime.
“However, this approach is problematic, as it doesn’t account for the positive externalities of fossil fuel use”
Nope. Unlike the ff costs, communized upon the rest of us, there are no similar “external” benefits. The bennies of ff’s are realized entirely by the purchasers. Some are indirect, such as the income you get from driving to work, but none are actually “externaiized”. So, since they have already been “factored in” when the fossil fuels were purchased, they shouldn’t be 2 counted later.
Hey blob:
What is the optimum CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?
Do you have your own battery car yet?
No. We have 2 mid drive e bikes and one mid sized diesel pickup. ~1/2 of our miles are on the bikes. Since we have a single wheel bike trailer we can shop, travel, even vacate on them. We do pull a small bed hitch travel trailer around North America and don’t angst about the carbon fooprpint from it. All told, we get twice the bang/#CO2 expended as the average Yanqui.
Of course the roads BOB drives on are not a communized benefit of hydrocarbon production. Neither is the technology that makes them possible – or the manufacturing, agriculture or general economy that it supports.
You aren’t expecting honest from Bob, are you?
Hmmm, you lecturing about honesty is like Trump lecturing about fidelity. Interesting this article acknowledges that the fossil fuel industry does get direct sudsidies, something you have always lied about Mark (talking about honesty).
TDS Simon is not worth the time its takes to type a reply.
But you did anyway….
Tell us again how Trump told people to drink bleach, bright guy.
He told people to drink bleach.
You’re a liar as well as idiot.
You forget that Simon lives in his own little world of delusion, in which everything he wants to be true, is.
That is a massive lie that I have debunked so many times which always the leftists who promotes them.
Except they had to redefine what a subsidy was to say that.
Yet again, you are letting your TDS over-ride any rational thought ability you might once have had,
Blah blah blah…
“Blah blah blah…”
Point made for me….. thanks. ! 🙂
Nice of you to admit that bnice2000 has made a point that you can’t refute.
Fossil fuels get/or used to get direct subsidies in places like Indonesia where they can’t afford to pay the world price for gasoline, for example. In many places the internal incomes and prices are totally out of sync with world prices. So the government tries to subsidize the fuel prices or force the national oil company to reserve some of the locally produced oil and gasoline for local consumption. And don’t forget the price of oil is artificially kept higher by cartels and other interference – so there’s another ‘tax’ on the consumer. So if Indonesian oil production can be sold at world prices and generate lots of jobs and related industrial and commercial revenues, such that the government coffers can give everyone a break on something that everyone uses, who the hell is the poverty-inducing IMF to complain?
And there you go again, confusing your opinion with reality.
Just because you want something to be true, doesn’t make it true.
As to the honor of having my own private troll, I’d rather pass.
BTW, you quite obviously never read the article. It refutes the claim that ff are being subsidized.
As has been shown over and over and over again, there are no subsidies. Never have been.
Watch out for those e bikes
“At least 12 people have died and 190 have been injured in suspected e bike or e scooter blazes in the UK since 2020” Grauniad 15 Sept 2023.
Our condo has just banned them from storage or charging anywhere in or under the building, as recommended by our local fire dept.
Ok lets try again: “What is the optimum CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?”
The issue is the sudden change in atmospheric [Co2]. This is already causing extreme temperature and climactic trends relative to our ability to adapt. And those of us with the least are disproportionately affected.
But to answer your (straw man) question, whatever relatively constant concentration would maximize human health and welfare. I.e., minimal temp and climactic extremes and extreme trends. Minimal fungilence, pestilence….
And you know all this hand-waved nonsense, how exactly?
Oh look it’s the proud boy fan boy.
Yes, its true all can see yer a true AH, clownpants.
You’re the one who sent the link to the site that endorsed the white supremacist proud boys. Do you not stand by your comments?
Everything you post comes from your steady diet of watching the marxist fake news.
The truth and you don’t not mix.
But you did post from a site that supported the proud boys did you not? Are you that gutless that you can’t even stand by what you post. Coward…….
Did you not say you were proud to be a little girl?
That is exactly what you are acting like.
Just don’t go near Biden, his nose will get you.
Let me guess, yer a Sandersnista…
You have to remember, Simon has a long history of seeing what he wants to see, not what is really there. This is the same guy who is still pushing the lie that Trump told people to drink bleach.
Here’s a TGP article you can choke on, batterycarboi:
Trump Up Six Points Over Old Joe Biden in Seven Swing States: Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Nevada, Michigan – Dems Better Dust Off Those Fake Voters
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/09/trump-up-six-points-old-joe-biden-seven/
The gateway pundit. The racist rag from hell. Well done…..
Slimon, a moronic anti-human git.. Well done. !
You got it.
A liar you are, and not a very good one.
Using guilt by vague association.
Pat yourself on the back, liar.
To the left, anyone who doesn’t agree with them is racist.
The only mental skill Simon has ever mastered, is his ability to believe what ever his masters tell him to believe.
How many fingers am I holding up Simon?
No fingers. You are all thumbs….
Poor simion…. stumped when asked to count past zero !
Illiterate as well as moronic.
Simon is working on the trifecta of liberalism.
Americans PROUD to be Americas…
… such a heinous crime
Pity you are NOT proud to be human male.
It really is sad the way Simon goes out of his way to prove how little intelligence he has.
“proud boy fan”
Good to know you are proud to be a girl, slimo.
Even though you might have been born a male.
Watch out, Simon may start stalking you too.
I only stalk completely hypocritcal sad sacks. Oh wait….
I only stalk completely hypocritcal sad sacks
Must be hard stalking yourself !!
You must have a boring life then……………….
“The issue is the sudden change in atmospheric [Co2]”
Not an issue.. you have absolutely no evidence of that.
Oh, and there is no Co2 in the atmosphere.
The rest of your comment is just pure fiction.
Cobalt gas? Sounds bad, better form a UN group to waste millions trying to look busy and get in the way of productive people.
First off, there is no evidence that the small amount of warming that’s been seen over the last 200 to 300 years is anything but natural. The rate of warming did not start increasing 70 years ago when CO2 started it’s so called, rapid rise.
There are no extreme temperatures, there are no climatic trends.
Everything seen recently has been seen before, usually many times.
Get a life ffs.
LOL.. great to see you making such a pitifully small gesture. !
Does it match your virtue-seeking quota?
Separately, you seem to have ~ a dozen comments that you keep in your black ball. Do you shake it to see which one you will post next?
That you refused to answer #1 is noted, just like all the other climate crisis chicken littles.
Because you can’t answer.
Optimum concentration is at least 1500ppm CO2 – only the plants that need the CO2 should have a say in that. CO2 and hydrogen sulfide spewing public dis-servants should STFU.
Still the climate crisis experts always run away from even trying to answer.
Unlike the ff costs
They’re far cheaper than unreliables, Bob and you know it
Wrong, but not what I said. My comment is only that the poster here is fundamentally not following the money. The IMF is directionally correct. it is also true that while the benefits of ff’s accrue to those who buy them – disproportionately the worlds higher income/net worthers – the costs are disproportionately communized upon the rest of us.
The benefit of having more food stuffs available for the poor to prevent their starving is a great net good and far exceeds the anything the higher income gain.
What costs are “communized” to the rest of us?
You benefit daily from FF extraction and processing.
Do you use anything made from Plastic?
…Water Bottles
…Prescription Medication Bottles
…Cell Phone Cases
…Computer Keyboards
…Lightweight Auto Interior Parts
…Lightweight Ebike Parts (battery cover)
…Bike Helmets
How about Synthetics?
…Wind Breakers
…Sleeping Bags
…Tents
…Sneakers
…Nylons (now I know you way nylons 😉)
Do you travel on Asphalt Roads?
Do you have Rubber Tires on your Truck, Trailers and Ebikes?
Do you write with Ink Pens?
Does your house have Asphalt Shingles?
Latex based Paint?
Is your wiring insulated with Plastic?
Does your wife wear makeup?
Do you use Chap Stick or other Lip Balms?
Do you have a home printer?
Do you have anything made with Steel? (Coal produced it)
Do you have Solar Panels? (Coal reduced the silica to Silicon)
Is your electricity sourced from the Grid?
You benefit from FFuse daily in the more than 6000 Goods sourced from them
QQQ?
How much more would all those FF derivative products cost if extraction costs weren’t subsidized through Gasoline and Diesel manufacture and Sales?
Those are not the communized subsidies/externalized costs under discussion:
No they’re not, they are the way YOU benefit from FF extraction and processing every day. They make your life possible.
There are none, there is no “crisis”.
I presume you see no externalized cost to wind and solar energy. Like covering vast areas of the landscape- with a huge environmental impact. If a solar “farm” was built next to your home, your home value would plumment. That’s an exammple of externalized cost. Do you live next to one or would you like to? Perhaps we should inform some solar “farm” builders you’d like one right next to your house.
I do, and they should be accounted for. But not ” covering vast areas of the landscape”. Solar farms – the only use in realistic question – rent/buy this land, and, unlike hydrocarbons drilling and producing, will not significantly harm it. BTW, solar and wind facilities pay the same “damages” as do il and gas production. Any actual such “damages” would accrue to adjacent land owners. But having a quiet neighbor engaging in a legal activity next door might not make a compelling case to a judge.
And unlike oil and gas production, most wind and solar farms have bonded lockboxed asset retirement $ in advance. This is particularly progressive in view of the fact that – also unlike oil and gas properties – the resource will not deplete. Equipment will age out and be replaced with improved, but the areas will be kept up. Most will be used by energy producers into perpetuity, paying much needed rentals, without the kind of asset retirement obligations now being shirked by the oil and gassers.
“ Most will be used by energy producers into perpetuity, “
Oh dear.. crystal balls and wishful thinking combines.
So funny !
search “abandoned wind turbines” and stop being so clueless. !
and
Solar Panel Waste – POVERTY POLLUTION PERSECUTION (pppp.my)
When Bob decides to invent a new reality, he goes all out.
All oil and gas facilities are required by law to have bonded clean funds.
I don’t know of any wind or solar farm that has one.
Land used for solar farms, can’t be be used for anything else. Much of it used to be forests or farmland.
Bob only see’s what headquarters tells him to see.
“Bob only see’s what headquarters tells him to see.”
The oily blob is bent over so far… he can only see his own **** !
Of course they aren’t costs, they are BENEFITS.
Do you want to go back to pure rubber tires and tubes? What do you think rubber car tires with cotton belts for EV’s would cost? How about for your bikes? Where would the rubber even come from?
You can’t make fertilizer from electricity made with wind and solar. What will food cost without it? Is that a subsidy or a benefit?
How about the composite material in your e-bike? What will they cost when they have wooden frames (no steel you know)? Are composite materials made from oil a cost or benefit.
Your definition of subsidy is assine. We ALL reap the benefits of FF that comescomes out of the ground, not just the rich.
How are the poor going to afford food that is produced without FF to plant, fertilize, and harvest, haul to market, and distribute? Only the rich will be able to afford food. I suspect it will even affect you! Me, I can grow a lot of my own on ten acres. Keeping it from folks trying to steal it will be the really hard part.
1,2, and especially 3 are great arguments AGAINST wind and solar…
Is that what you intended.?
Just remember.. your whole existence relies totally on the availability of fossil fuels.
You can’t “rely” on wind and solar for anything. !
There are no AGW costs. There are no environmental, etc costs.
The only clean up that will be necessary will be the cost of cleaning up worthless wind and solar farms.
The AGW conjecture has failed due to the never seen Hot Spot and Positive Feedback Loops it predicted.
You remain in modeling fantasy world.
Even the poorest in a third world oil producing country has it much better than the same in a non-oil producing 3rd world country – at worst he is begging from richer people and dumpster diving into better garbage.
“the benefits of ff’s accrue to those who buy them”
Lots of benefits also go to those who work in the ff industries- and consider the multiplier effect of that wealth produced as it moves through the economy.
“the costs are disproportionately communized upon the rest of us.”
What “costs”
The whole world benefits from fossil fuels.
Western civilisation could not function without them.
Civilisation can function perfectly well without wind and solar.
In fact, they are proving to be a massive parasitic hinderance to stability of energy supply.
Bob is referring to the claims of the alarmists that every bad storm, fire, drought etc was caused by CO2.
Doesn’t matter that there was absolutely nothing unusual about any of it. The models have decreed that CO2 makes everything worse, therefor it did.
The IMF is completely wrong. They cite costs that don’t exist, and ignore benefits that do. They also cite completely normal tax write-offs that all companies have as “subsidies”.
The IMF “paper” is 100% dishonest, and so are you.
So If the power company makes electricity out of gas and I use it to heat my home instead of cutting down trees to burn the benefit doesn’t count but if I use electricity from a windmill to heat my house it is a benefit that counts. I am still confused. I do know that I spent too much of my life cutting wood and really prefer heating with gas. Does my appreciation make it a benefit?
So Bob is a science denier.
Not that I’m surprised.
The fact that enhanced CO2 is greening the planet has been recognized for decades.
There are no external costs, because the impact of CO2 on the planet can’t be measured and are entirely imaginary.
He finally came out of the closet and admitted he’s a climate crisis chicken little.
Yet wind and solar are a NEGATIVE benefit.
They contribute absolutely nothing to society.
Just remember, blob, your whole existence relies on fossil fuels. !
Without them, the world could not function.
Wind and solar add absolutely nothing to the world’s existence.
“…your whole existence relies on fossil fuels.”
Probably true, at least as I lived it, post tweener. I.e., pulling slips on a Sooner Trend workover rig at 14 – illegal as hell. Then Seabees, a GI Bill BS Petroleum Engineering degree from a Mines School, oilfield work, professional accreditation, an advanced degree in Drilling Engineering from USC, going international. Per Dr. Evil “Pretty standard stuff”.
” Without them, the world could not function.”
Yes, for you. If you fit the WUWT demo, then you’ll be at room temp. soon. But if you care for those coming along later, they will do without them. Even now, in the most prospective US play, the Permian, 2023 oil and oil associated gas, proved, “on”, SEC barrel of oil equivalent reserves will drop from those now booked for 2022. And so will they go, pretty much from now on, along with almost every other, lower quality US plays. No, not for “Bbbbutt, BIDEN!!” reasons, but for about a half dozen boring, geological and petroleum engineering/economic ones. From now on the name of the game for producers will be to slow mo liquidate for the benefit of their shareholders (understandable, smart) and to shirk their 12 $ figures of asset retirement obligations (already underway) – just here in the US…
“Yet wind and solar are a NEGATIVE benefit.
They contribute absolutely nothing to society.”
If you have read this far, you know that’s not true. Yes, when we finally get that repository for the nuc waste now “temporarily” being stored in the back 40 of virtually every new and old nuc power plant, the extra load from a new gen of intrinsically safe MSR’s would not add significant risk. But until then…..
Now this is a grade-A fine blob word salad.
roflmao.
another load of incomprehensible word garbage from the oily blob.
Yes, blob.. the civilised world cannot function without fossil fuels.. period.
Your whole pitiful existence is totally reliant on them.
“Yet wind and solar are a NEGATIVE benefit.
They contribute absolutely nothing to society.”
You managed to say absolutely nothing to counter this fact.
Wind and solar are, in fact, a massive burden on society, via subsidies, erratic and costly electricity, …
… not to mention degradation of vast areas of flora, fauna and avian life.
You don’t expect bob to actually understand the nonsense he’s spewiing?
We had a repository until the goverment decided to shut it down.
If we were to resume reprocessing nuclear waste, there would be no need for a repository.
I love how the environmentalists work hard to create a problem, then turn around and use the existence of the problem that they created to argue against nuclear power.
Disagree. If my neighbour benefits from fossil fuels it means he doesn’t feel motivated to steal from me or others to gain those benefits. That’s an externality, because I benefit from living in a well behaved society without having to pay the full cost. I benefit when others work efficiently because they are working in a suitably heated or cooled environment. I benefit from the general economic efficiency that fossil fuels enable.
False – the higher CO2 levels are being enjoyed by every single plant and farmer, and by extension, every person on the planet, because food is cheaper and more plentiful than without the fossil fuels.
“By the purchasers” – what about every product made or delivered with fossil fuels, how are the benefits measured there? That’s basically everything.
Doshi’s article appears in Forbes. Forbes has a pay wall. Did anybody else without a pay wall publish it?
A subsidy is needed to get things going
A tax break kicks in when a licence and the development have been paid up front
Clearly chalk and cheese
By that definition, a subsidy goes away once the thing gets moving. Does that ever happen? And why is a subsidy needed in the first place?
No, the subsidy should be repaid – in part at the very least
Should be repaiid? Yes. Can you name examples when this happened? I don’t know of any.
If the subsidy really helped a new industry thrive, and it grows into a multi billion dollar industry employing many- then I suppose it could be said to have been a good investment- whether or not it’s ever repaid. That can’t be said so far for wind and solar energy.
I can’t think of any examples where government subsidies have created a multi-billion dollar industry.
For the most part government subsidies are used to support industries that have no markets except politicians.
This is is unlikely to be repaid or reduce CO2 emissions.
Tata Steel: Port Talbot steelworks gets £500m by UK government
£500m by the UK government in a bid to keep the plant open and produce steel in a greener way, but it could see thousands lose their jobs.
Tata Steel will add £700m of its own as it invests in cutting emissions. It had asked ministers to provide a bigger chunk of the cost.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-66819458
Many government jobs are just subsidies (handouts) to friends of politicians, certainly here in Wokeachusetts. And, they never go away.
In the Ag region where I live, farmers get a “refund” of some fuel taxes and a tax credit for others. Watermelons call these tax discounts a subsidy to the energy industry, when in reality it’s part of the overall plan to keep food costs as low as possible. The same watermelons also add fuel sales to the military and government fuel payments to supply diesel fuel to northern communities to their so-called subsidies. They are very creative with their lies.
If a vehicle is not used on the road, it is not a subsidy to not charge it road use taxes.
“Legacy media, with its penchant for sensationalism”
Lol, I misread this initially as “Lunacy Media”. I like mine better.
The IMF is an evil institution that enslaves people with debt.
It shills for the world’s financial sector
It should be abolished, including the World Bank
Absolutely correct. At its core, the IMF is the enforcement arm of the so-called money center banks:
I’d wager that the typical ‘man in the street’ of any developing nation knows a lot more about the IMF than does your typical US economics undergrad.
We need apples to apples assessments of subsidies. A is not B. A tax deduction for capital depreciation is not the same as tax credit for purchasing an EV, for example.
Don’t fooled into thinking the tax credit is for consumers. It’s a subsidy for the manufacturers.
Yet another yadda yadda yadda conflating Tax Breaks with Subsidies
Tax Break: Money you don’t have to pay the government on earnings from work that has been done.
Subsidy: Money the Government pays you for doing No Work at all
Tax Breaks can be a benefit to society as they lower the tax burden in lieu of work benefiting society.
Subsidies are a drain on society as they are paid to businesses for doing nothing and could be better spent on societal benefits not given to parasitic businesses
There are 2 kinds of tax breaks, credits and deductions. Both can be subsidies and both can cause economic distortions.
If you tax different industries at different rates, then the low tax industries are being subsidized.
If you give some industries a tax break that other industries don’t get, then the industries with the tax break are being subsidized.
The claim from those who know nothing of accounting or economics is that depletion allowances are a subsidy.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Depletion allowances are nothing more than depreciation that has been optimized for a depletable natural resource rather than a purchase that has a fixed expected life, such as a building or equipment.
Extinction Rebellion in the Netherlands is blocking the A12 motorway in The Hague on a daily basis now, demanding to stop fossil fuel “subsidies” where fuel taxes are government’s biggest cash cow.
Put some temporary exhaust tubing on some diesel trucks so they exhaust out the front and rev the motors into the faces of the XR protesters
I think extinction rebellion should be used for punting practice or just cattle prodded to unconsciousness when they block the road. Makes it easier to drag them out of the way. I’m glad I haven’t run into them yet as I would probably end up in jail, I don’t have a lot of patience with complete braindead idiots.
The so called negative externalities are almost completely imaginary.
How can there be a “cost of increased storms” When there has been no increase in storms?
What makes you think the climate alarmists have any interest in a nuanced and informed discussion?
The leftoid econonuts always call every subidy an expense. I always ask Who wrote a check and to whom?
All too often the Green subsidies are the Gov’t writing a check, as well as a tax break or credit.
Oil/Gas is a tax subsidy and the Oil/Gas people are writing rather large checks to the Gov’t, and all too often without that “subsidy” the checks would not be written.
I hate having to pay for someone else’s battery car through taxes.
This is fair?
As always the myth of external costs. Truth is at every step of fossil fuel economy there are taxes. Taxes are anti-subsidies. If anyone can demonstrate “subsidies” in excess of those myriad and oft times crushing taxes then by all means show us.
Presumably the IMF thinks Saudi Arabia subsidises their oil industry with revenues from, err.., selling sand and camel dung?
Even the BBC used to assert that the black gold from under the North Sea saved UK government revenues in the 1980’s recession.
******************************************************************
“Implicit subsidies” to offset the “cost of global warming” are a
BIG FAT LIE.
**************************************************************************
Fossil fuels are NOT causing any harmful “climate externalities.”
1. Any “global warming” observed is well within the bounds of natural variation.
2. CO2 lags surface temperature rise by a quarter cycle. Rise in CO2 does NOT “cause” warming to any meaningful degree.
3. There is no data proving human CO2 emissions cause any meaningful shifts in the climate zones of the earth.
IMF’s lying about fossil fuels reminded me of this:
Yep, speaking of grifters . . .
Obama, like most leftists, believes that the only reason why the sun rises every morning, is because regulations require it.
Nice article but you are far to kind to these scoundrels. They are seriously endangering millions of people with net zero trash talk and lies about subsidies. They need to be challenged head on for the liars and cheats that they are. I recommend all fossil fuel and nuclear energy be blocked for their use, that goes for their offices, transportation and personal residences.
I am sure that someone could look up how much the big oil majors paid in tax last year and compare it to how much windfarm operators paid. And the calculation to enable a comparison.
First how about the benefit of fossil fuel plants providing power when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine?
Are the “green” surcharges on fossil fuels included in the calculation? I will argue that those are in fact paying for the so-called damage from FF use.
It seems dishonest.
It is dishonest, and deliberately so.
At the end of the day, IMF should self proclaim soviet supreme and rate political option and determine the best one.