Skip to main content

View Diary: Rich nations subsidize fossil fuels at 5x rate they give to climate assistance fund for poor nations (36 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Japan has no fossil fuels. (21+ / 0-)

    Japan has not been corrupted by big oil because Japan has no domestic oil.

    look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

    by FishOutofWater on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 03:54:28 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  So they got sucked into nuclear. Sigh. (3+ / 0-)

      I've heard they're doing some good development of wind energy, tho you probably know more about that than I do.

      But it's good to see them contributing to green energy development in poorer countries.

      Damn, the US should at least be matching them.

      --------------------- “These are troubling times. Corporation are treated like people. People are treated like things. …And if we ever needed to vote, we sure do need to vote now.” -- Rev. Dr. William J. Barber

      by Fiona West on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 06:52:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Neither do plenty of other countries, BS stats. (0+ / 0-)

      Finland and Sweden for instance, produce no oil nor coal, have no coal or natural-gas fired power plants. While Japan is a large consumer of natural gas.

      So how is say, Sweden, 'subsidizing' it here? Much less at a rate that'd be 3% of their national budget??!

      Why? Because apparently they blindly added up the numbers in their source statistics, without any actual attention to what those numbers were. Look at them, closely. They're mostly carbon tax exemptions/reductions aimed at specific industries.

      Finland introduced the world's first carbon tax in 1990, Sweden followed in 1991. And yes, they have lower rates for certain industries - apparently that's a 'subsidy' now that's apparently comparable to directly supporting producers?! Japan did not have a carbon tax in 2011 - so obviously they had no exceptions to it, and thus no 'subsidies' here. Thus: not taxing carbon equals doing more to stop climate change, according to this website.

      This is a completely meaningless apples-to-oranges comparison.

      •  Based on consumption not production (0+ / 0-)

        Many countries produce little fossil fuels but consume quite a bit and any subsidy below cost to obtain the resources is counted.

        Furthermore, what is compared in the chart is pledges to the Green Climate Fund verses subsidies, no country is given credit for other forms of carbon taxation or other tax disincentives.

        What you might want to look at is per capita emissions, e.g,

        2009 data CO2 tones per capita

        USA        17.2
        Finland   10.7
        Japan       9.5
        Sweden    5.3
        China       5.3

        Interesting when you consider how much Japan and China manufacture products consumed by other nations verses the relatively lower industrial production of Finland or Sweden, suggesting both have lower personal emissions.

        I guess in this case Japan gets credit for the relatively high commitments they have made to the fund.

        What about my Daughter's future?

        by koNko on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 09:39:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site