+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 41
Latest: GWarnock
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 8447
Total Topics: 228
Most Online Today: 1
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Author Topic: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!  (Read 2637 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences


The fossil fuel government has the fossil fuel (welfare queen) industry's back!  And OUR our wallet!   


Quote
Did you know you could get billions of dollars from the US government to be in the oil business? Or the coal industry? Or fracking? In this satirical infomercial, famous American government grant guru Matthew Lesko shows how you too can get billions of dollars from the government to destroy the environment!

• Seriously, fossil fuel companies are racking in billions from subsidies. Learn more here.


• This is part of our comedy series, Climate change: too hot to handle

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2015/aug/07/fossil-fuels-govenment-subsidies-satire-video
« Last Edit: May 09, 2017, 08:54:52 pm by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Why Republicans Vote for Bernie

Agelbert comment: Thom,

You left out one VERY IMPORTANT reason why most Americans will support Senator Sanders for President:

Senator Sanders has submitted legislation to eliminate the subsidies for Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power. That corporate welfare queen THEFT is a HUGE millstone around the neck of America that AIDS the polluters and HINDERS the 100% Renewable Energy transition that would provide jobs and a chance to survive Climate Change.
Quote

“At a time when scientists tell us we need to reduce carbon pollution to prevent catastrophic climate change, it is absurd to provide massive taxpayer subsidies that pad fossil-fuel companies’ already enormous profits,” said senator Bernie Sanders, who announced on 30 April he is running for president.

Sanders, with representative Keith Ellison, recently proposed an End Polluter Welfare Act, which they say would cut $135bn of US subsidies for fossil fuel companies over the next decade. “Between 2010 and 2014, the oil, coal, gas, utility, and natural resource extraction industries spent $1.8bn on lobbying, much of it in defence of these giveaways,” according to Sanders and Ellison.

http://www.theguardian.co...est-fossil-fuel-companies

Many conservatives are keenly aware of this.  People get tired of being ripped off by the fossil fuel government. They can add and subtract.

For example, gasoline prices have not been cut anywhere near what they should have been cut.

The amazing way a pipeline here, or a refinery shut down there (accompanied by copious crocodile tears about wanting to provide us a "service"), manages to keep gasoline prices "inelastic" (on the way down, OF COURSE - they have a hair trigger on the way up!) so they go up at a moment's notice despite that bla, bla about all the "good, prudent, business" reasons they don't go down is more mindfork as per Orwell speak and Machiavelli.

Quote
One must know how to color one’s actions and to be a great liar and deceiver. – Niccolo Machiavelli

Quote
"The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato

Joe Mauk called BS on a recent crocodile tear piece by an oil industry shill titled "Why don't gas prices fall?":

"At $80 a barrel being 42 gallons of gas at $1.60 a gallon, then $49 dollars a barrel should be at about .95 to $1.30. The figures for a barrel of oil to a gallon of gas is over a $1.50 more per gallon than it needs to be so, they are making profit, what they report losses on is anyone's guess."
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Tell Congress: Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes
58,141 signatures
58% Complete
100,000

In 2013, taxpayers spent BILLIONS in subsidies for big oil and gas companies – the same year the Big Five oil companies brought in $93 BILLION in profits. That’s $177,000 per minute! It’s outrageous: Congress is pouring money into companies that are already wildly profitable.

Some of these tax loopholes have been on the books for 100 years! Over the years, oil loopholes have amounted to a gift of hundreds of billions of dollars from taxpayers to one of the most profitable industries in the world. With taxpayer subsidies like that, it's no wonder the Big Five oil companies were able to pay their
CEOs $125 million last year alone.

It’s time to stop giving unfair tax giveaways to Big Oil. Add your name to tell Congress to close Big Oil tax loopholes!


Sen. Al Franken
Sen. Patrick Leahy
Sen. Ed Markey
Sen. Bob Menendez
Sen. Patty Murray
Sen. Bill Nelson
Sen. Jack Reed
Sen. Chuck Schumer
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse

http://signforgood.com/bi...ltaxloopholes/?code=Leahy
« Last Edit: February 16, 2017, 04:40:04 pm by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
The 800 Ways Taxpayer Money Supports Fossil Fuel Industries
   
If the world seeks to lower carbon emissions, why is support for fossil fuels so strong?   
 


September 21, 2015

By Reed Landberg, Bloomberg

As world leaders converge on New York for a United Nations gathering that’s expected to have a strong emphasis on climate change, the OECD is pointing out 800 ways rich industrial nations support fossil fuels with taxpayer money, along with a handful of countries that are catching up quickly.

The measures were worth $167 billion last year for the oil, natural gas and coal industries  , according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a Paris-based institution that advises 34 industrial nations. While that number has fallen from almost $200 billion in 2012, it easily exceeds the value of subsidies for renewables such as wind and solar.  >:(

The findings released Monday are designed to stimulate debate on what constitutes fair support for energy technologies. World leaders including U.S. President Barack Obama and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping are attempting to ratchet up ambitions for a global deal reducing greenhouse gas pollution. The UN-organized negotiations are expected to yield an international agreement in Paris in December. The OECD report suggests policy makers burrow into their own tax and spending measures for a solution.

“We’re totally schizophrenic,” Angel Gurria, the OECD’s secretary-general, said at a press conference in Paris on Monday. “We’re trying to reduce emissions, and we subsidize the consumption of fossil fuels. These policies are not obsolete, they’re dangerous legacies of a bygone era when pollution was viewed as a tolerable side effect of economic growth. They should be erased from the books.”

The report covered OECD member nations plus six developing economies outside the group -- Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Russia and South Africa. It expands on a 2013 assessment and on the work of the International Energy Agency, which put the cost of fossil fuel subsidies at $548 billion in 2013, down 25 percent from the year before.

Biggest Subsidizers

The IEA report includes countries from the Middle East and Africa such as Qatar, Iran and Nigeria that top other rankings of big subsidizers. It looked at how consumer prices vary from market prices, while the OECD looked specifically at measures in national budgets that support fossil fuels.

“If other developing countries were included, then the total would be much higher,” said Angus McCrone, senior analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance in London. “The reassuring point from the OECD report is that although it found attempts to reduce fossil-fuel subsidies running into inertia, it also concluded that support is now on a downward trend.”

Renewable energy subsidies rose 15 percent to $121 billion in 2013 and may rise to $230 billion by 2030, according to an IEA report released last year.

The measures counted by the OECD covered some of the most obscure pieces of national tax codes -- including direct controls on gasoline prices, depreciation allowances for oil drillers, breaks for refiners, credits for infrastructure like pipelines and stimulus for technology to clean up coal emissions.

‘People Are Outraged’ 

“People are outraged when they find out that their tax dollars are being used to prop up the richest industry on the planet,” said Jamie Henn, strategy director at 350.org, the campaign group founded by environmentalist Bill McKibben to urge investors to divest from high-polluting industries.

Quote
“Funding fossil fuels is like buying up typewriters at the dawn of the computer age.”   

Oil and oil products reaped 82 percent of the support, according to the OECD, with coal collecting 8 percent and gas 10 percent. A plunge in crude oil prices reduced some of the cost of subsidies.

More important were measures taken in India, China, Mexico and Indonesia, as well as most industrial nations, to reduce handouts to forms of energy that produce significant amounts of pollution. India saved 200 billion rupees ($3 billion) from 2012 to 2014 by slashing subsidies for diesel. Indonesia reduced consumer aid for electricity and motor fuels that ate up a fifth of its spending as recently as 2011. In the U.S., Obama has proposed $4 billion a year of savings from reduced fossil-fuel support.

“We’re certainly not saying that all the measures are bad,” since some are targeted to help poor people afford fuel they need, Jehan Sauvage, the lead author of the OECD report, said in an interview. “The key message is to ask if this is the best use of public money. Are these measures the best way to support the goals we have?”

©2015 Bloomberg News
http://www.renewableenerg...ssil-fuel-industries.html
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
President Obama said,
Quote
“Rather than subsidize the past, we should invest in the future — especially in communities that rely on fossil fuels. That’s why I’m going to push to change the way we manage our oil and coal resources, so that they better reflect the costs they impose on taxpayers and our planet.”




Jan 13, 2016 Sara Shor - 350.org: 
 
Quote
Since 1920, the government has been selling coal, oil, and gas on federal land to the highest bidder. President Obama has rightly identified that this is an antiquated system due for an overhaul. But these federal fossil fuel auctions don’t just require minor adjustments -- each and every one of them needs to be cancelled. (Last year, local activists mobilized around six government fossil fuel auctions, and managed to get two of them called off.) 

Half the fossil fuels under U.S. soil are on these public lands. That includes coal in Montana, offshore oil in Virginia, and fracked gas in Colorado. If he wanted to, President Obama could say “let’s keep it all in the ground” tomorrow, and we could keep 450 gigatons of carbon out of our atmosphere (without interference from climate deniers in Congress).

Fossil fuel companies already have five times more oil, gas, and coal than they can burn. We can’t afford to sell them any more. We have to just start saying no.






Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Koch Brothers Plotting Multimillion Dollar War on Electric Vehicles   

Lorraine Chow | February 19, 2016 2:45 pm

SNIPPETS:

Death to the electric car?    Charles and David Koch are reportedly backing a new group that will use millions to promote petroleum and fight against government subsidies for electric vehicles.

In an effort to strike back at record-breaking EV sales, the fossil fuel industry is allegedly funding a new organization that will spend $10 million a year to push petroleum-based transportation fuels and attack government subsidies on EVs, refining industry sources told the Huffington Post.


Elon Musk
✔  ‎‎@elonmusk 

Worth noting that all gasoline cars are heavily subsidized via oil company tax credits & unpaid public health costs.  http://www.theguardian.co...ute-in-subsidies-says-imf


http://ecowatch.com/2016/...koch-brothers-war-on-evs/


Comment by renewableguy

Fossil fuels is scared sh--less.

Agelbert reply:
Yep.

Amory Lovins knows the score. The fossil fuel industry is a wounded beast. It's days are numbered.

QUOTE
Over the past 40 years, Americans have saved 31 times as much energy as renewables added. Those cumulative savings are equivalent to 21 years’ current energy use.  They’re simply invisible: you can’t see the energy you don’t use. But globally, it’s a bigger “supply” than oil, and inexorably, it’s going to get much, much bigger.

Oil companies worry about climate regulation, but they’re even more at risk from market competition. The oil that’ll be unburnable for climate reasons is probably less than the oil that’ll be unsellable because efficiency and renewables can do the same job cheaper.

An oil business that sputters when oil’s at $90 a barrel, swoons at $50, and dies at $30 will not do well against the $25 cost of getting U.S. mobility—or anyone else’s, since the technologies are fungible—completely off oil by 2050. That cost, like the $18 per saved barrel to make U.S. automobiles uncompromised, attractive, cost-effective, and oil-free, is a 2010–11 analytic result; today’s costs are even lower and continue to fall.

In short, like whale oil in the 1850s, oil is becoming uncompetitive even at low prices before it became unavailable even at high prices.
UNQUOTE

As Oil Prices Gyrate, Underlying Trends Are Shifting To Oil's Disadvantage
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Fossil fuels subsidised by $10m a minute, says IMF
 
‘Shocking’ revelation finds $5.3tn subsidy estimate for 2015 is greater than the total health spending of all the world’s governments
   >:(



Excellent article with revealing graphics and charts:


http://www.theguardian.co...ute-in-subsidies-says-imf

« Last Edit: May 04, 2016, 03:16:28 pm by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Agelbert NOTE: If the Saudis can eliminate the oil subsidy SWAG, there is NO REASON we can't do the same in the United States.



Saudi prince makes bold challenges to kingdom's old ways

Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman got a standing ovation when he visited a gathering of Saudi youth last month.

Posted 04 May 2016 23:00 Updated 04 May 2016 23:30



SNIPPET 1:

Last week, Prince Mohammed officially unveiled Saudi Vision 2030, his blueprint to move the economy decisively from that he called its “addiction to oil” towards the private sector.   



SNIPPET 2:
The phased removal of subsidies on fuel  , water and electricity - part of the welfare lavished on Saudis, of whom about four out of five workers hold public sector jobs - is already underway.   



SNIPPET 3:

Abdulaziz al-Sager, head of the Jeddah and Geneva-based Gulf Research Centre, says there is a growing recognition among Saudi leaders that the oil-based economic system is not sustainable. That will necessarily lead to social and political change. 

http://www.channelnewsasi...ngworld:standard#cxrecs_s


We-the-people CANNOT AFFORD to continue to baby the fossil fuel industry WELFARE QUEENS in the U.S.! 
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Elon Musk: We Must Revolt Against the Unrelenting Propaganda of the Fossil Fuel Industry

Lorraine Chow | May 5, 2016 11:18 am

During an interview at the World Energy Innovation Forum (WEIF) at Tesla’s Fremont, California factory Wednesday, Elon Musk criticized fossil fuel subsidies as well the alleged “propaganda” tactics deployed by Big Oil and Gas to tarnish his companies, including Tesla, SolarCity and SpaceX.

Quote
“The fundamental issue with fossil fuels is … every use of fossil fuels comes with a subsidy ,” Musk said in his talk with forum organizer and DBL Partners venture capitalist Ira Ehrenpreis.

According to the Tesla CEO, cheap oil and gasoline prices not only prevent drivers from switching their gas-guzzlers to electric cars, it also deters the fight against climate change.

Musk explained that the well-funded fossil fuel industry isn’t even paying for their contribution to environmental destruction. 

Quote
“It would be like if you could just dump garbage in the street and not pay for garbage pickup,” he said.

Citing data from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Musk lamented he’s “competing against something that has a $6 trillion per year subsidy,” and that the low gas prices that subsidies create are “weakening the economic-forcing function to sustainable transport and clean energy in general.”

Musk suggested that a carbon tax would help curb Dirty Energy’s emissions but passage of such a policy would be “hugely politically difficult” and that politicians usually pick the easier path of providing subsidies for electric cars, “even though gas cars are getting a bigger subsidy.”

Although the electric vehicle maker said he was “encouraged by the Paris talks,” he still thinks that the transition to clean energy and sustainable transportation isn’t happening quickly enough.

Musk gave an example of how the fossil fuel industry has been feeding negative stories to the press about his many companies.

As Electrek explained:

The CEO implied that the LA Times article from last year that misleadingly asserted that Musk’s companies received $4.9 billion in subsidies originated from the fossil fuel industry.

Musk suggested that the report was planted to counter the IMF study that found that the fossil fuel industry was receiving the equivalent of ~$5 trillion in subsidy a year. Both reports came out around the same time.

“After the IMF came out with their study showing that fossil fuels are subsidized to the tune of $6 trillion a year [it’s was actually $5.3 trillion in 2015]–like $6 trillion per year,” Musk said. “Then some representatives from the oil and gas industry added up all the incentives that Tesla had received and will receive in the future, which happens to coincide with the $6 billion figure.” 

“We need to appeal to the people–educate people to sort of revolt against this and to fight the propaganda of the fossil fuel industry which is unrelenting and enormous,” he concluded.

Earlier in his talk, Musk also predicted that autonomous cars are the future of transportation.

“It’s going to become common for cars to be autonomous a lot faster than people think,” Musk said, adding that half of all new cars will have self-driving technology within seven to 10 years.

“It’ll just be something where it’s odd if it’s not in your car. Like not having GPS or something like that, but even bigger. It’ll just be normal,” he said.

The entire interview was captured by Electrek in the video below. Musk’s discussion about the fossil fuel industry starts around the 18:30 mark.


http://ecowatch.com/2016/...5/elon-musk-fossil-fuels/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences


Agelbert NOTE: The following is a copy of one of 5 letters sent today to the candidates for governor of Vermont.

Each letter differs only by the name of the recipient.

The candidates for governor of Vermont are: Peter Galbraith, Bruce Lisman, Sue Minter, Matt Dunne and Lt. Gov. Phil Scott.


Quote
Jul 28, 2016

 Peter Galbraith

 To Galbraith,

 I agree with Ashley Orgain, as you should as well.

 "We can't have a healthy business on a sick planet."-- Ashley
 Orgain, manager of mission advocacy and outreach for Seventh
 Generation, Burlington, Vermont

 I am retired and live in a manufactured home. I have a low income but
 have never collected ANY kind of welfare, home heating assistance or
 food stamps, although I respect Vermonters who require those worthy
 services to help them get back on their feet.

 But there is a service this state is providing the polluters that is
 not worthy or justified by any stretch of the imagination. That is the
 direct and indirect subsidy that Vermont provides for fossil fuels and
 those who profit from selling them.

 Subsidizing fossil fuels and "externalizing" the pollution on
 to we-the-people is NOT a worthy service because of the directly
 related health care costs to the state, including, but not limited to,
 reduced longevity, absence from work due to illness and fossil fuel use
 related occupational hazards.

 I support a carbon pollution tax paired with tax cuts and investment in
 clean energy and efficiency.

 As a candidate for governor - I hope you understand that the vast
 majority of Vermonters believe global warming is real, primarily caused
 by humans and that we want to be part of the solution.

 We also want leaders willing to pursue policies that will protect our
 environment and strengthen our economy.

 We can do just that -- by lowering taxes on income, employment and
 sales,  investing in clean energy and efficiency and paying for it with
 a gradually rising tax on carbon pollution.

 This is an environmental and economic winner for our state. Continued
 subsidies and babying of fossil fuel providers is a LOSER for our state.

 If I am willing to pay a tax on carbon AND support the elimination of
 ALL subsidies for polluting fuel producers, there is no reason, besides
 unjustified profit over people and planet, that you should not do the
 same.

 Sincerely,

 Anthony G. Gelbert
(home address and e-mail address included)
Colchester, VT 05446

Yes, I know this letter to five candidates for Governor of Vermont is probably another one of my quixotic efforts.  :(  Howevah, ya never know when common sense might prevail over bought and paid for stupidity.

The story of my life: Outnumbered, always; outgunned, usually; outclassed, never.   





Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
 

To show you that the cratering of fossil fuel prices (and STOCK!) is NOT a recent trend, here's last year's one year performance Oil & Gas Writing on the Wall (Street).   8)

 

The totally unjustified price increase earlier this year was due to SPECULATION, not "supply & demand", as the recent wailing    and gnashing of teeth by oil trader crooks evidences when they got their arses handed to them by the Chinese.

Last year, reality was asserting itself in the stock market. Reality has a habit of doing that, despite the most energetic efforts at corruption and rigging by the champions      of profit over planet.  8)



Fossil Fuel Corporations are going to lose a lot of money.

Here's why. It is in the category of correct accounting procedures. Perhaps it is such a shock to the corporate world that they had to invent a new accounting term (i.e. Stranded Assets.).

"Stranded Assets", the new term for fossil fuels and the accompanying infrastructure plant and equipment, in real world accounting, means "LIABILITIES".

When that realization FINALLY hits the balance sheet preparers in the corporate world, the red ink will produce a TORRENT of fossil fuel industry bankruptcies. GOOD!  ;D


And let's not forget all those refineries, pipelines, drilling rigs and, last but not least, ocean going oil tankers that will find it rather difficult to carry olive oil or biofuels instead of crude oil....     


Looky here, a floating white elephant!
Hellespont Alhambra (now TI Asia), a ULCC TI class supertanker, which are the largest ocean-going oil tankers in the world

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
When you’re in a carbon hole, stop digging 

Published on 03/10/2016, 4:53pm 

Coal mine expansion makes dirty fuel cheap and delays the transition to clean alternatives. A moratorium is in order, argues Richard Denniss

By  Richard Denniss 

A world that is tackling climate change needs fewer coal mines, not more. But despite the simple truth of that statement, very large new coal mines are still being approved, subsidized and built around the world.   

In Australia, for example, the proposed Adani Carmichael mine – the largest ever in the country – would boost world coal output by around 40 million tonnes per year, enough to push the world price of coal down by around 1–2%.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement will require a broad range of measures, given that less coal will be needed in a low carbon future.

A simple first step for a world committed to a safe climate would be a moratorium on new coal mines, such as that proposed by the then-President of Kiribati, Anote Tong.

In addition to the obvious benefits of reducing coal production, avoiding unnecessary investment in unnecessary projects, and pushing up the price of coal, a moratorium on building new coal mines has a number of political economy, equity and diplomatic benefits.

Coal is by far the largest contributor to global emissions, and financially and politically, coal is the weakest member of the fossil fuel family. A moratorium on new coal mines further weakens the political power of the industry: Not only does it separate coal from the oil and gas sector, but it also separates the interests of the owners of existing coal mines from the interests of those proposing new coal mines.

Closely related to this is how a moratorium on new mines fits with the need for a “just transition” away from coal. Avoiding new mines helps to protect the jobs and wages of workers in existing coal mines, some of which might otherwise be forced to shut down early amid competition from new, often subsidized, coal mines.

This means a moratorium can help to support a more just and orderly transition for affected communities. When global demand for coal is flat or declining, every new coal mine built lowers both the market share and price received by all existing coal mines. That means new coal mines not only delay the transition away from coal; they also hurt existing coal miners’ livelihoods.


Study: Existing coal, oil and gas fields will blow carbon budget 


At a diplomatic level, the call for a moratorium allows countries that are committed to global climate action to place diplomatic pressure on the small number of countries that are committed to the construction of new coal mines.

In this sense, the call for a moratorium is the diplomatic equivalent of a divestment or "Keep it In the Ground” campaign. Forcing countries such as Australia to defend their right to significantly expand their coal exports is likely to help marginalize the views of such countries in existing foreign policy forums, including international climate negotiations.

As world demand for coal declines over time, the result will be lower prices. This will, inevitably, induce further demand, and thus delay the point at which renewable energy is significantly cheaper than coal fired electricity.

In addition to avoiding unnecessary investments and protecting the jobs of workers in existing coal mines, supply-side policies such as a coal moratorium can help to keep upward pressure on price and, in turn, augment and speed up the rate at which demand-side policies and technological change can drive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Richard Denniss  is chief economist at The Australia Institute, tweeting @rdns_tai. To learn more about efforts to achieve a moratorium on new coal mines in Australia, see: http://www.nonewcoalmines.org.au.

http://www.climatechangen...carbon-hole-stop-digging/

 

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Germany tells World Bank to quit funding fossil fuels

http://www.climatechangen...uit-funding-fossil-fuels/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Agelbert NOTE: ANYONE who claims that there is not ample proof on this thread of the gargantuan, and totally unjustified, subsidies (THEFT from taxpayers) the fossil fuel industry welfare queens get annually from our government (and foreign governments all over the world too!) is REALLY off their rockers. 

To the ignoramous who complained about lack of fossil fuel subsidy proof here: Argue your point or STFU.

Fossil Fuel Subsidies in the U.S.

What is a fossil fuel subsidy?

A fossil fuel subsidy is any government action that lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received by energy producers or lowers the price paid by energy consumers. There are a lot of activities under this simple definition—tax breaks and giveaways, but also loans at favorable rates, price controls, purchase requirements and a whole lot of other things.

Are you looking for information about International Fossil Fuel Subsidies?  Then go here.

How much money does the U.S. government give oil, gas and coal companies?

In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel subsidies range from $14 billion to $52 billion annually, while even efforts to remove small portions of those subsidies have been defeated in Congress, as shown in the graphic below


http://priceofoil.org/con...olSubsidyGraphicFlyer.pdf

http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
 
Fossil fuels subsidies ‘jeopardising climate deal’, say major investors

Published on 15/02/2017, 12:01am
 
A group of investors and insurers who manage $2.8trn has called on the G20 to end public funding for coal, oil and gas by 2020   

By Karl Mathiesen 


Investors with US$2.8 trillion  :o under management have called on the world’s leading economies to stop subsidising fossil fuels within four years.

The group, which includes insurance brands Legal & General and Aviva, issued a statement on Wednesday calling for a 2020 deadline to be set for a phase out of subsidies for coal, oil and gas by the G20 nations. G20 foreign ministers are meeting this week ahead of a leaders’ summit in Hamburg in July.

The G7 nations have pledged to end their subsidies by 2025, but much of the world’s carbon emissions growth is coming from countries on the next rung of the economic ladder.

The G20, which encompasses many of the world’s emerging economies, have agreed to phase out “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption” over the “medium term”. But despite increasing pressure from civil society and some countries within the G20, the commitment has remained hazy.

The group of fund managers, many of which hold large fossil fuel investments, said a clear signal from the world’s biggest economies would give them the confidence to shift capital towards clean energy.

Meryam Omi, head of sustainability and responsible investment strategy at Legal and General, said: “The current level of inefficient subsidies and lack of transparency are jeopardising the global goal of meeting the Paris climate targets and of ensuring a secure, healthy and reliable energy system.

Quote
“As investors, we are faced with a tremendous opportunity to finance the low carbon transition and, as such, we look for the governments to set a clear timeline and a plan for phasing out fossil fuel subsidies to enable an orderly transition. "

Subsidies can come in the form of tax breaks, direct finance and indirect assistance but the definition is a subject of debate. Because of this, estimates of global fossil fuel subsidies vary widely, but even conservative estimates set the annual spend in the hundreds of billions.

Secretary general of the Mercator Research Institute Brigitte Knopf leads a task force charged with advising on the G20 meeting’s climate agenda. She said the topic of phasing out fossil fuel subsidies would be discussed at the meeting.

“However, in the current political situation we will see what is realistic in the end,” she said. The meeting will be the first multilateral talks attended by the new US president Donald Trump and a major test of his anti-globalist agenda.

The US has led on this matter in the past, last year presenting a joint peer review with China. Germany and Mexico are set to follow suit. But Trump has already reversed many of the pro-climate initiatives of his predecessor Barack Obama.

On fossil fuel subsidies, Knopf said “a clear deadline would certainly help with this endeavour. However, a phase-out year of 2020 is very ambitious. In 2016, the G7 have agreed on a date of 2025 and I don’t expect that the G20 can become more ambitious than the already positive signal of a joint 2025 deadline. It is also very well possible for the G20 to come out with a two-step approach of different speeds, meaning that the industrialized countries agree to phase out earlier than the emerging economies.”

Shelagh Whitley, head of climate and energy at the ODI, said ministers and leaders meeting in Hamburg in July must heed the financial sector.

“Global investors and insurers are sending a clear message to governments that burning public money through fossil fuel subsidies is not just bad for the planet, but bad economic policy too,” she said.

A similar call was made by three insurers ahead of last year’s of G20 nations in China. In repeating their statement they were joined by a dozen investment groups and insurers. In terms of wealth managed, the group is equal in size to the world’s largest public fund - the US Social Security Trust Funds –  and more than three times larger than the largest sovereign wealth fund, Norway’s.

Foreign ministers from the G20 will meet in Bonn, Germany, later this week.

http://www.climatechangen...deal-say-major-investors/

Agelbert NOTE: The U.S. Trump Fossil Fuel Government's Front Man, Tillerson    , will, of course, fight common sense policies to phase out fossil fuels tooth and nail. If he is successful , we are doomed.  :(

Quote
"The fossil fuel industry swallows up $5.3 trillion a year worldwide in hidden costs to keep burning fossil fuels, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
 
This money, the IMF noted, is in addition to the $492 billion in direct subsidies offered by governments around the world through write-offs and write-downs and land-use loopholes.

In a sane world these subsidies would be invested to free us from the deadly effects of carbon emissions caused by fossil fuels, but we do not live in a sane world. "  -- Chris Hedges

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
180 Replies
6210 Views
Last post December 08, 2017, 01:41:51 pm
by AGelbert
209 Replies
3643 Views
Last post December 12, 2017, 02:40:24 pm
by AGelbert
1 Replies
264 Views
Last post July 21, 2014, 10:29:36 pm
by AGelbert
123 Replies
3055 Views
Last post December 12, 2017, 11:41:43 pm
by AGelbert
0 Replies
125 Views
Last post July 18, 2015, 03:44:37 pm
by AGelbert

+-Recent Topics

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 11:49:23 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 11:29:07 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 10:01:49 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 05:05:03 pm

Wind Power by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 04:34:29 pm

Future Earth by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 02:51:20 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 01:35:42 pm

Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution by AGelbert
December 14, 2017, 10:49:12 pm

Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF by AGelbert
December 14, 2017, 09:32:10 pm

Fibonacci Sequence: The Spiral of Life by AGelbert
December 14, 2017, 01:07:22 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial