Phasing out fossil fuel subsidies 'could provide half of global carbon target'

[txlibdem]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/19/fossil-fuel-subsidies-carbon-target?newsfeed=true

Phasing out fossil fuel subsidies 'could provide half of global carbon target'
Such a move could save the equivalent of Germany's annual emissions by 2015, says chief economist at the IEA

Duncan Clark, guardian.co.uk, Thursday 19 January 2012 06.21 EST

While the G20 pledged in 2009 to phase out such fossil fuel subsidies in the "medium term", the hundreds of billions that governments spend each year rose in 2010. The World Bank, economist Lord Nicholas Stern and green groups have also called for their removal.

"Energy markets can be thought of as suffering from appendicitis due to fossil fuel subsidies. They need to be removed for a healthy energy economy," said Birol. "Energy is significantly underpriced in many parts of the world, leading to wasteful consumption, price volatility and fuel smuggling. It's also undermining the competitiveness of renewables."

According to IEA research, 37 governments spent $409bn on artificially lowering the price of fossil fuels in 2010. Critics say the subsidies significantly boost oil and gas consumption and disadvantage renewable energy technologies, which received only $66bn of subsidies in the same year.

Birol and the IEA said that a phase-out would avoid 750m tonnes of CO2 a year by 2015, potentially rising to 2.6 gigatonnes by 2035, a level sufficient to provide half the emissions reductions needed to limit global warming to 2C, considered the limit of safety by many scientists. "Fossil fuel subsidies are a hand brake as we drive along the road to a sustainable energy future," he said. "Removing them would take us half way to a trajectory that would hold us to 2C."

[Nihil]

1. Many people - even those at the top - can see what to do ...

... they're just NOT DOING IT.

And with the current electoral circus under way in teh US, there will be no end
of wankery to avoid doing the right thing "in case it polls badly in focus groups".

[txlibdem]

2. True. Perhaps it is time to Occupy Election Financing

Force public financing and shorten the election cycle to 60 days for local and state offices and 120 days for national offices. End lobbyists, PACs and Super-PACs and allow only the candidates themselves to make campaign ads.

[guardian]

3. I agree with phasing out fossil fuel subsidies

But I don't think it will have a noticeable impact. The article in the OP says there were $409 billion in fossil fuel subsides. According to http://www.ibisworld.com/industry/global/global-oil-gas-exploration-production.html, the global Oil and Gas industry is expected to generate revenue of $3.2 trillion in 2011.

$409 billion is only 0.012% or 0.00012 of $3.2 trillion. I don't see how removing subsides equaling one hundredth of one percent of industry revenues would change anything the oil and gas companies or consumers are doing currently. On the face of it, the claim that removing subsidies will take the world half way limiting global warming to 2C seems about as nonsensical as most of the other projections/models touted by doomers. This article doesn't pass the laugh test.

[txlibdem]

4. So why are we subsidizing a 3 Trillion Dollar industry at all?

That cash would do a lot to alleviate poverty, improve education, rebuild infrastructure, etc., instead of lining the pockets of greedy and well-connected oil tycoons. Right?

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. No, it's 12%

$409 billion is about 12% of $3.2trillion, ie $3200 billion.

[Kolesar]

6. doomers

Smile when you say that.