Study: Global Warming Solvable If Fossil Fuel Subsidies Given To Clean Energy 385
An anonymous reader writes A research team at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Laxenburg, Austria, says it has studied how much it would cost for governments to stick to their worldwide global warming goal. They've concluded that for "a 70 per cent chance of keeping below 2 degrees Celsius, the investment will have to rise to $1.2 trillion a year." Where to get that money? The researchers say that "global investment in energy is already $1 trillion a year and rising" with more than half going to fossil fuel energy. If those subsidies were spent on renewable energy instead, the researchers hypothesize that "global warming would be close to being solved."
How about (Score:1, Insightful)
Wait until those lamers find out... (Score:4, Insightful)
That if you REALLY want to eliminate fossil fuel usage, the big spending is going to have to be on dams and nuclear reactors.
OPEC to subsidize its demise? (Score:5, Insightful)
TFA is loonie. According to its own data, the "fossil fuel subsidies" it is hoping to redirect are those that third-world OPEC type countries currently give to their own populations in the form of supercheap oil. Withholding that money would be regime suicide (plus possibly population genocide).
Re:How about (Score:1, Insightful)
How about you stop posting talking points you can't even back up with a single fact?
Why subsidize energy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How about (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How about (Score:3, Insightful)
The article seeks to equate subsidy with investment. Those really aren't the same thing.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: How do you solve a problem that doesn't exist? (Score:2, Insightful)
Infinite Bank Account (Score:1, Insightful)
Suppose you had a bank account with $20,000,000,000,000 (20 trillion) in it. That's so much wealth that it can be considered infinite for all practical purposes. There is no monarchy, but with that much resources in your name, you are practically king for life, your children are king for life, your children's children are king for life.
Then one day some hippies tell you that you shouldn't withdraw your money from this bank because it will destroy the lives of billions of people. They're saying we need to invest in renewable energy so save ourselves. So you face a dillema:
A. Keep your infinite bank account, and be the king of a world where billions of people are doomed.
B. Give up your infinite bank account, and be a nobody in a world where everyone is much better off.
What do you choose? What do they choose? Keep in mind, most of those who have this infinite bank account are not the compassionate kind of people.
Re:How about (Score:3, Insightful)
On a per-unit energy generated standpoint, renewables get the heftiest subsidies by far in most countries, yet the net impact of CO2 reduction in any of those countries is not yet helping improve the situation on a global scale.
There is also naivety in assuming simple renewable approaches will work just anywhere, and ignoring the cost of 'backup up' of wind and solar is a common mistake made yet again. Ignoring the short term economic impacts on local behavior & human behavior is another common mistake. Not all countries have an economic underpinning that allows these shifts without significant impact. Its kind of like a "why can't we all just get along?" philosophy....we all know that peace in the world would be great, lets just stop fighting......but achieving it has been elusive.
If we get serious, and employ the right mix of renewable, nuclear, and gas, there is a chance that we can make global progress on CO2 emissions reduction.
Re:Wait until those lamers find out... (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be more like what is happening in Germany. Massive investment in wind, solar, wave and geothermal, but crucially also a massive investment in a new smarter grid to support it all.
I have no doubt that it will happen in Europe, but the US is going to find it hard. Things like subsidising residential solar are seen as un-American and socialist, even though it's fine to heavily subsidise companies building fossil fuel or nuclear plants. The grid is a money-making privately owned infrastructure, not something that is supposed to work for the public's benefit. In other words, the problems are all cultural.
Re: How about (Score:5, Insightful)
It never ceases to amaze me how Progressives can so blithely condemn BIG corporations and their answer to solving the "BIG Corporation" problem is always to give more power to the largest, most powerful organization on the planet. Because large size causes corruption in companies, but it must only cause nobility in governments, right?
Re: How about (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Infinite Bank Account (Score:5, Insightful)
"Money" that people have "in the bank" is really ownership of companies. What you call "withdrawing" means reallocating that money, closing one kind of business and firing its employees, and opening another kind of business and hiring people there. Whether that's a good or bad deal depends on exactly what the new business does compared to the old business.
They choose to attempt to maximize the return on their investment, which is both in their interest and in society's interest.
No, the "dilemma" you imagine doesn't exist. Rich people aren't hurt by shifting their investments from one kind of company to another kind. If Obama pours billions of subsidies into "green energy", the same people who own oil companies and profit from it will just switch over to those companies. So will your pension fund.
Really the only question is whether the new "green energy companies" will deliver what they promise; that's the part that's doubtful, because if they did, why wouldn't people be investing in them voluntarily?
Re: How about (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll take a government that I can vote in or out over a corp that I can't, and often HAVE to do business with because it's a monopoly. :D
OR! Maybe it's not that black and white, and we need a decent balance. Oh, sorry, I'm off the talking points. Still, I don't think progressives are off to say that corporate power has grown tremendously in the last few decades and they need to be reigned in a bit. No one is saying to get rid of corps. Hell, I USE an LLC. The benefits are obvious. It's also obvious that our representatives don't represent us, they represent their donors. We need to reclaim our government from moneyed influence.
Re: How about (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll take a government I can vote out of office than a corporation that can rebrand, hide behind subsidiaries, operate out of tax havens, etc.
Large corporations have proven time and again that, when left to their own devices, they will screw over consumers, each other and anyone unfortunate enough to live near their factories. The only check on this type of amoral behaviour is responsible, democratically elected governments.
End ALL subsidies (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is not that fossil fuels gets subsidies. The problem is that there are subsidies. Don't shift the subsidies and give them to someone else. It is time to end all subsidies.
No fossil fuel subsidies -> gasoline will rise to it's natural price of about $16/gallon, electric prices will rise and there will be more interest in renewables and efficiency.
No farm subsidies -> food prices will rise for the worst foods but less so for better foods and more local foods.
No mortgage deduction (a subsidy) -> cost of loans will go up but home prices will actually drop.
While we're at it, pay politicians only minimum wage and change taxation to a simple flat income tax over the poverty x 150% and institute a national sales tax of 7%, local real estate taxes only on buildings (not land) and virtually all other taxes should be eliminated. Then keep it that way for the next 100 years. Make things predictable.
Re:all for ending subsidies (Score:4, Insightful)
I usually ignore ACs, but your post is the standard rebuttal about "what subsidies?" and it's totally wrong...
1. Tax credit for paying foreign taxes. This is a "subsidy" as far as EVERY SINGLE COMPANY gets the same thing. If you pay $1 in income tax overseas, you do not have to pay that same $1 on the same income. It applies to profits earned overseas, and already taxed. ALL companies get this; if you want to call this an energy subsidy, then you can also call it a subsidy for renewables/solar/wind - because they get it as well (oh, and you can also say that every overseas US worker gets the subsidy because when they pay taxes on their overseas income, they get to deduct those paid taxes from the US taxes they owe).
2. Credit for alternative fuel production. Uhhh, you mean ALTERNATIVE energy credits? Yep - there's that dastardly Big Oil stealing the money from alternative energy to, uh, fund traditional oil/gas? Nope. It's for GREEN initiatives, like ethanol and the like. Fuels that would NOT be competitive on the market unless they are subsidized, fuels that are "green" and alternative. Why this is not included in the alternative energy subsidies I don't know - guess something had to stick somewhere?
3. Oil and gas exploration and expensing. I guess R&D for technology shouldn't be deductible. That land prep for farmers shouldn't be deductible. That planting new trees for tree farms shouldn't be deductible. That clearing land for solar and wind shouldn't be deductible. It's a standard business expense - R&D - that ALL BUSINESSES get to deduct.
Yep, some great list! Now, I wonder about those who shout about "Big Oil doesn't pay tax!" I wonder if they realize ExxonMobil paid over $31 BILLION in taxes last year [usatoday.com], the most by any US company. Followed by Chevron? With Apple a distant 3rd?
Re: How about (Score:4, Insightful)