2y ago

U.N. chief calls for an end to $7 trillion in fossil fuel subsidies

www.cnbc.com

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics. @slrpnk.net

pizzaiolo @slrpnk.net

2y ago

U.N. chief calls for an end to $7 trillion in fossil fuel subsidies

www.cnbc.com /2023/09/20/un-chief-calls-for-an-end-to-7-trillion-in-fossil-fuel-subsidies.html

29 comments

That's quite literally the least we could do.
- Doing literally nothing to reduce fossil fuels would be better than the thing we are currently doing, which is subsidising them. Really puts into perspective all the climate "promises".
  
  Mass starvation is a price we're willing to pay. End the subsidies... /s
- Tax them. Heavy.
We absolutely should be ending subsidies on fossil fuels, the meat industry, and other polluters. This will cause a ripple effect on the cost of everyday items and the standard of living globally, so of course there will be those that say it can't be done. The problem is the game of musical chairs will eventually end, either when we're completely fucked or at a time of our choosing.
- Ask they have to do is scale back 1% the first year, 2% the next, etc. The second it looks like a long term investment won't pay off they'll stop making them. Then we'll see supply chain issues slowly increase which will force fleet vehicle purchases over to electric or hydrogen faster.
  That will spread into the personal vehicle market.
  Demand will reduce for IC vehicles and so on.
  You don't need to make massive changes to have a big impact over time. The problem is every thinking this will get you shouted down by almost anyone with real money.
  The thing to do is also incentivize them to invest in the new, growing opportunities but again they want too, but without giving anything up.
  
  Then ending subsidies would take 100 year, which is way too slow.
Does this count the wars we do for it? Always funny to me when people claim that renewables aren't viable without subsidies and yet here's the very mature fossil fuel industry sucking up way more in subsidies.
Is the purpose of these subsidies to maintain oil and gas infrastructure so that the military can also use it?
If the infrastructure is necessary for defense but not necessary for civilian use then it sounds like it should be paid for via tax, be maintained by the government, and counted as defense spending.
This would increase the military's fuel cost (to the true cost) and higher gas prices brought about by ending the subsidies would incentivize lower carbon transportation methods for civilians.
I scanned the article, and I often hear about this. Is there a list of the specific subsidies for fossil fuels?
I am happy to reach out to my Congress people as I donate to them, but they respond best to short and specific requests.
- America, like Canada, subsidizes TF out of the oil companies to intentionally deflate the price of gas. Start looking there.
  Also worth noting because it is still destructive, we subsidize TF out of corn too, to the detriment of other crops.
  I don't think people realize how under-priced almost everything they purchase is, and it's all because of mass subsidies.
  We need to end these subsidies but damn if people won't freak over their groceries even more.
  
  Sounds like communism!
  
  We all have an interest in overproducing crops. If, say, Florida becomes an aquarium, or there's a disease that wipes out a lot of a particular monoculture, we don't want a ridiculous spike in food prices (or worse).
- no tax on airplane fuel
  
  Is a lack of tax really a subsidy?
  I would think most of the subsidies are governments paying companies to extract it locally rather than import it from a cheaper country, so the country is less exposed to world events.
  Where a non-subsidy version of this would be to tax the bollocks off any foreign imported fuels so it makes more sense to extract it locally.
  Of course the reality is that most countries need both locally extracted and imported fuel to meet demand, and that you, the taxpayer, will be picking up the bill in either case.
  It would be better for everyone if we just left that shit in the ground where it belongs, but we ain't there yet.
- refugee program
  For climate refugees?
Too little too late. We’ve been warning you motherfuckers for easy over a hundred years, but nobody ever listens to scientists, 🤷
Lucky for you science will swoop in and save you again anyways. Though the planet is still pretty fucked.
Fucking “world leaders”.
- Lucky for you science will swoop in and save you again anyways.
  We can hope so, but the problems are escalating quickly and we aren't moving quickly to mitigate them.
  
  Moving quickly to mitigate them doesn't help this quarter's returns. Therefore, move to strike. Seconded. The ayes have it.
  
  we look to be at a point where it doesnt matter how quickly we move, we cant mitigate them now (at least not the problems we will face over the next 50 years or so). We made our bed, now we have to lie in it. And im not saying its too late therefore do nothing, there is still worse cases we can try to avoid.
- Though the planet is still pretty fucked.
  I'm pretty sure the planet will be fine. Those of us trying to live on it though might have some problems.
  
  Sorry when I said “the planet” I meant more like the delicate ecosystems and life cycles will be fucked. We’re already starting to see signs of it with all the various population collapses.
DRUQZ

29 comments