Duncan Clark
writes:
According [International Energy Agency] research, 37 governments spent $409bn on artificially lowering the price of fossil fuels in 2010. Critics say the subsidies significantly boost oil and gas consumption and disadvantage renewable energy technologies, which received only $66bn of subsidies in the same year.
[IEA chief economist Fatih Birol] said that a phase-out would avoid 750m tonnes of CO2 a year by 2015, potentially rising to 2.6 gigatonnes by 2035, a level sufficient to provide half the emissions reductions needed to limit global warming to 2C, considered the limit of safety by many scientists. "Fossil fuel subsidies are a hand brake as we drive along the road to a sustainable energy future," he said. "Removing them would take us half way to a trajectory that would hold us to 2C."
Most of the world's fuel subsidies are given out in transitional and developing countries—especially those which themselves export fossil fuels. Sometimes the policies are seen as a way to alleviate poverty, but IEA analysis suggests that the poorest members of society do not see their fair share of the benefits.
"Just 8% of the $409bn spent on fossil-fuel subsidies in 2010 went to the poorest 20% of the population," Birol said. "It's clear that other direct forms of welfare support would cost much less." He added that the poorest people were being "punished twice", because the money used to make fossil fuels cheaper could instead be spent on schools, hospitals and other public services.
Of course, getting rid of subsidies given the clout of the fossil-fuels industry is about as easy as imposing a carbon tax or persuading Rick Santorum that climate change is real.
Blast from the Past. At Daily Kos on this date in 2003:
Bush I built an impressive coalition to help drive Iraq from Kuwait. GHWB was a consumate diplomat, with a deep understanding and respect for our allies and the need to build legitimacy through existing international frameworks. This is how things are done in the sequel:
As the dispute heated up, leaders reacted angrily Thursday to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's dismissal of France and Germany as the "old Europe," saying the comments underscore America's arrogance.
Of course, it's time for the Chickenhawk Right to start demonizing the French and Germans. They're either "with us" or "against us," right?
One interesting turn of events has been the emergence of a more hawkish Powell. Does this mean he has surrendered to the Chickenhawk brigade within the administration?
Tweet of the Day:
High Impact Posts are here. Top Comments are here.