Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

cromstantinople t1_ivpsuz4 wrote

Reply to comment by Uncle00Buck in More people are employed in clean energy than in fossil fuels by kickresume

I disagree since it's usually taxpayer-funded projects that have to deal with that impact. We all pay a carbon tax in terms of air quality and premature deaths. The idea being that externalized costs aren't taken into consideration and they most certainly should. The price of fossil fuels are kept low because they externalize cost in addition to getting billions a year in direct government subsidies.

1

Uncle00Buck t1_ivr4e5r wrote

Are we discussing the definition of subsidy or what you think is right? There are substantial societal benefits to fossil fuels as well as negative environmental impact. Do we subtract that portion? Defining value and burden are not black and white. I'm also not in favor of poor folks having to pay more for gas when it represents a chunk of their income. The best solution is that no one should get subsidies and let the market push ripe alternative energy technology.

3

cromstantinople t1_ivrf2i3 wrote

Subsidy, n: a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.

From the IMF report: "Underpricing fossil fuels not only undermines domestic and global environmental objectives but is a highly inefficient policy for helping low- income households2 and has a sizable fiscal cost—too little revenue is raised from fuel taxes, implying other taxes or government deficits must be higher or public spending lower."

The subsidy is that we, as taxpayers and breathers of air, are paying is in higher taxes or lower spending elsewhere or by increased debt/deficits. So, because their costs are externalized, the price of the commodity is kept low thereby forcing governments to pay those costs.

0