Quote:
Originally Posted by headhorse
that's a nice opinion for you to have, but I'm more interested in facts. the production and transport of oil and gas is heavily subsidized, yes. then capitalists make us pay the tax on it at the pump so they don't have to.
https://www.vox.com/2019/5/17/186247...es-climate-imf
this is also why it's a stupid argument to say "well so and so drives/flies, they're a hypocrite!" our system is literally built around a monopoly on these choices that oil and gas companies have. there is no alternative because no one can compete with such a heavily propped up industry.
|
Hmm, I was reading the study that that Vox article quoted and their definition of subsidy seems pretty vague. "This paper updates estimates of fossil fuel subsidies, defined as fuel consumption times the
gap between existing and efficient prices (i.e., prices warranted by supply costs, environmental
costs, and revenue considerations)". This definition leaves the term 'subsidy' open to considerable interpretation. We don't - by-and-large - give direct subsidies to oil companies (except for Trudeau apparently, buying up pipeline projects, but that's a separate issue). Corporations in the business can access certain incentives etc for keeping jobs in the market, same as any other business.
The middle point, "revenue considerations", is almost impossible to actually quantify as a dollar value, and is subject to the whims of the authors. If we did some digging I am positive that this point would account for the majority of these "subsidies".
They even admit as much on page 6: "For one thing, environmental costs are measured with considerable uncertainty—most obviously
global climate change, but another example is local air pollution, where there are several
sequential linkages between the burning of a fuel and changes in the mortality rates for exposed
populations (see below), all of which involve plenty of data uncertainties. In addition, there are
differing views on how to value the associated health risks."
So they're essentially saying that they can't really quantify it properly and that there could be considerable differences in the estimate depending on who you talk to. I don't think that this should be viewed as a subsidy because it is so indirect that you can't properly quantify the cost and effect of it.