Slashdot Mirror
Study: Global Warming Solvable If Fossil Fuel Subsidies Given To Clean Energy
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."
That if you REALLY want to eliminate fossil fuel usage, the big spending is going to have to be on dams and nuclear reactors.
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).
Energy is a lot like roads an bridges in the way it promotes prosperity by its very existence. One can imagine a world where energy does not need military protection or special tax treatment, but it would be a world where national rivalries in power and economics are much subdues compared to the present. We're not there yet, but a rapid transition to renewable energy could probably get us closer more than just about any other move. Let's make the switch.
TFA is about one group of subsidy-seekers trying to relieve another set of subsidy seekers of ill-gotten gains, amiright?
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
The article seeks to equate subsidy with investment. Those really aren't the same thing.
So if you consulted with 100 doctors and 97 told them you that you had cancer, you'd go with the 3?? Is it only climate science you dismiss so flippantly, or is this internet thing also another liberal plot...
The author doesn't really seem to understand the nature of subsidies, and likely gets his info from sources that use the core data in different ways.
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.
Your assumption there is no compassion contained in those with these infinite bank account owners reveals you have the same level of blinders as your hippies. Neither is your example compassionate. It cannot be as you are leading the reader to choose the option of taking by force what is not theirs under the name of misplaced altruism and attempted shaming.
There is no dilemma, the answer is simple; keep what I got and use it as I see fit; the hippies and you can kiss my ass.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Today on /. we find out who doesn't know the difference between subsidies, tax deductions, tax breaks, and taxes.
From the linked CNN article above:
Among other things, the measure killed on Thursday would have ended oil production's categorization under the tax code as a form of domestic manufacturing eligible for a deduction worth 6% of net income, according to New Jersey Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez, the bill's author.
The measure also would have prevented oil companies from claiming foreign royalty payments as a credit against American taxes, and cut the ability of companies to deduct numerous costs associated with the drilling process.
So we have a bunch of tax deductions that literally every company in the country is eligible for, but when the oil industry takes them they become subsidies and are bad.
Wow.....
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?
Hydroelectric is good, in the places where it makes sense such as Niagara Falls.
To provide for all of US energy needs would require 20,000 dams, each with the capacity of Hoover dam. Because Hoover was located in one of the best places possible, it flooded only 100 square miles. We' e already dammed most of the best spots, so new dams would be in less ideal places.
The 20,000 dams required would flood 80% of the continental US, so that's probably not a solution. There may be a few places remaining to add a little bit more hydro. However, we should keep in mind hydro is responsible for all of the catastrophic accidents that kill thousands of people. See for example Banqiao. Also, the MAIN reason to avoid fossil fuels is greenhouse gases, and hydro produces about the same amount of greenhouse gases, so it doesn't really help with the primary goal. International Rivers has some good information about that if you're interested.
Nuclear makes a lot of sense, with the one main drawback being a concern about safety. A worst-case nuclear accident could, in theory, kill a lot of people. On the other hand, hydro and coal actually DO kill thousands of people. Solar electric doesn't kill people, but it doesn't produce reliable electricity either, so it's only indirectly dangerous - wasting time and money playing with solar ensures that we remain stuck with coal.
ill take corps, which i can decide to do business with or not, over a government that i cannot choose
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
"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?
if I want to travel to a particular city by rail
well sure if you limit your options, if you had the statement "if i want to travel to city A, I can take a car built by many different companies, I can take a plane, run by many different companies. and theres also a train"
that is the same logic as if i want to play a video game i only have nintendo, well no you have other options out there, if you pigeonhole yourself thats on you.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
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.
We need to start by ending ALL money spent by the governments that supports or benefits the coal industry (direct subsidies, governments building rail lines, ports etc to benefit the coal industry, building new coal fired power stations instead of building better alternatives etc)
And no I dont care if you loose your job because no-one wants the coal your mine (or mining town) produces anymore, much like I dont care that people no longer want asbestos or buggy whips or any other obsolete technology.
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.
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
It's because it's much easier for somebody who isn't rich to appeal decisions by the government. Congress exists, everyone has a Congressperson, and every Congressperson has an office with 25 staff. Quite a few of those people are devoted to something called "constituent service," which is helping people deal with government bureaucracies.For example I have a coworker who had some income from Social Security when she was a child. She's not really a sophisticated consumer of government documents, so she had her Mom fill out the form they use to close out their cases. They ruled they owed her $6k. Four years or so later I did her taxes, and the IRS took her whole refund because Social Security had changed it's mind. She had no idea why they gave the money in the first place so she really really really does not know why they decided that was the wrong thing to do.
But Congresswoman Fudge has a guy for that, and she's talking to him. I have no idea if she'll get any money back, but she'll at least know what's going on. I guess either Social Security screwed up or her Mom put something on the form Social Security thinks is not true, but either way she should know soon.
Let's say a private corporation were doing the equivalent. They have a lien on her car and a debt on her credit report. Her choices would be a) never sell the car or do anything that includes a credit check, and b) pay a lawyer $150-200 an hour to deal figure out what they're talking about. She makes about $10.50 an hour, and has to feed a kid.
Now if Libertarians were willing to include a tax hike to pay for lawyers for poor people, or switch our Justice System from the expensive/high BS confrontational model to one where the judge is supposed to advocate for the guy whose being outspent (this would take a Constitutional Amendment); then my calculus changes and I'm, more sympathetic to increasing corporate power relative to the government.
Government is of the people, by the people, for the people. Business's sole purpose is to serve those with money.
Government protects rights that apply to the least popular person as much as to the most popular person. Business gives the rich more rights.
No CEO swears to uphold the General Welfare. Government is mandated to by the Constitution.
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, the most by any US company. Followed by Chevron? With Apple a distant 3rd?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
"pro-unrestrained capitalist propaganda" I guess is what leftists are calling anything that disagrees with their own viewpoints. Funny how we're all supposed to be tolerant of different opinions, until those opinions don't follow left-wing thought. Then the most vile denunciations are appropriate to use, and dehumanizing your targets is a suitable response. Sickening, but here we are.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Strong government is how you counter strong corporations. It is not a case of either being noble, but of needing balance between two types of institutions.
... global warming'...
But I'm amazed these retards actually used the phrase 'global warming', since the new accepted LIE is to use the deliberately misleading phrase 'climate change', which is MEANT to mean "catastropic man-made global warming', and is IMPLIED every time they use it...
Just go to www.climatedepot.com and start reading the truth about this ridiculous 'global warming' scam. These 'scientists' are just shysters in it for the money, and my, doesn't it show.
ClimateDepot is a shell website created by the "Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow," a think tank funded by crackpot Richard Mellon Scaife (you might remember him from every fake Clinton scandal ever) and Exxon Mobil.
It's ran by Marc Morano, an ex-producer of Rush Limbaugh's show, which should tell you about as much as you need to know about it's journalistic ethics.
In short, ClimateDepot is a fake website designed to sucker idiots like you into believing there's some sort of "other side" to the climate change "debate" -- when in reality there isn't. But then again, 90% of the Climate Deniers I have met are in it just to piss off liberals in some sort of psychotic ignorant tribalism, so... perhaps I waste my breath.
I may be wrong, but I feel like you missed the point of the post above you... the "$20 trillion dollar bank account", I took to be an analogy for the world's fossil fuel reserves. Which, if we want to avert climate change, we probably have to take a significant fraction of and leave it in the ground.
All the focus is on reducing demand by reducing usage, and that would theoretically force fuels to be sold cheaper until the point where it's not economically viable to extract them. But it seems like an indirect approach compared to convincing a government that controls a lot of fuel reserves to just stop drilling them out and leave them buried.
But of course it's not really 'realistic' to expect them to do that - they're sitting on a bottomless well of wealth just begging to be dug up. It would make them uncompetitive to stop, it would mean other nations continue to profit while they sit on their hands, it would weaken their position of power on the world stage... it would help save the ecoystem of the planet, but clearly that's of no particular importance compared to wealth and power.