green_flash t1_j6ah0p3 wrote
Phasing out government subsidies for fossil fuels should be completely non-controversial.
It's crazy that we still subsidize climate-damaging actions.
GMFPs_sweat_towel t1_j6ai4o9 wrote
Hate to break it to you, but the world runs on fossil fuels. Life in an industrialized nation requires a shit ton of energy and unless people are willing to drastically lower their standard of living, they will continue to demand cheap energy. Just look how upset people are when gas prices spike or their heating bill goes up.
green_flash t1_j6ajpi5 wrote
No need to subsidize fossil fuels for that. Just give people a transport premium or a heating premium and let them decide for themselves how they want to use it. Forcing people to buy fossil fuels so they can benefit is exactly the wrong way to go about it.
pzerr t1_j6dupu1 wrote
How is Europe subsidizing fossil fuels when then enact windfall taxes?
keithps t1_j6bdr5t wrote
It's not quite that simple. The subsidies pay for things like upgrades to refineries, because the fossil fuel company knows its life is short and thus won't invest the money. But without the upgrades it will shut down, driving the cost up for consumers.
Mycroft_Cadburry t1_j6bu9ft wrote
You’re basically just making the case for nationalizing energy companies since they will gladly take record profits and refuse to pay for their own equipment. They are blood sucking parasites on Government treasuries, why should they be private.
green_flash t1_j6be6sd wrote
> But without the upgrades it will shut down, driving the cost up for consumers.
That's a good thing though. It makes alternatives more competitive.
O_K_D t1_j6bizmi wrote
It doesnt make the alternative cheaper though. It just means everything becomes more expensive, hence a reduction in standards of living and purchasing power.
The key is to make the alternative more competitive by making it cheaper than fossil fuels, not by making fossil fuels more expensive than renewables. And that can only happen if industry keeps doing R&D at low costs by using the cheapest form of energy possible (fossil fuels) until they bring down the price of renewable technology to the level of fossil fuels. Then society will naturally switch to using renewables.
AGVann t1_j6bsli0 wrote
And that switch is being delayed because there's an artificial economic lever being pulled in favor of oil and gas corporations. You can't have this bullshit about the invisible hand of the free market but also argue for interventions in the market to prevent transitions.
koreamax t1_j6bxa2o wrote
So, that means for a pretty extended period of time, energy prices will go way up. Most of the world cannot afford that
AGVann t1_j6bz18t wrote
No, because the price of oil and gas is artificially inflated already due to OPEC. Every time there's a risk of competition, Saudi Arabia intentionally crashes the price of oil to force companies into unprofitability. The US fracking industry was collateral in the Russo-Saudi oil price war.
All these subsidies do is guarantee that western nations are subsidizing the extremely high price of oil and gas that Saudi Arabia sets. If there was genuine competition, the price of energy overall would fall.
koreamax t1_j6bz9hf wrote
Yes, Opec artificially inflates prices. What does that have to do with the Netherlands? Industrialized society is build on fossil fuels and you can't just replace them right away. Especially with the extremely high start up cost for renewables
SandAndAlum t1_j6c1c2x wrote
If this is necessary (it's not, but pretend that it is), tax it back out downstream (or upstream) the distribute it as a dividend.
People will have the same net buying power, the 'necessary' investment still gets made, and there's no net subsidy. There's no downside.
Telemachuss t1_j6be4j2 wrote
“Hate to break it to you” but stuffing cash into the pockets of oil and gas companies is nit the only way to keep the world running. We could just as easily directly offer people premiums to assist in their living.
Simon676 t1_j6dxtkg wrote
Fossil fuels are a lot more expensive than renewables... there's a reason a lot of them need subsidies to not go out of business.
Kaito__1412 t1_j6bb41q wrote
> unless people are willing to drastically lower their standard of living die.
There. I fixed it for you. Modern human civilization can not function without hydrocarbons. I'm all for transitioning to renewables (+ nuclear), but it's nowhere near close to replacing hydrocarbons. transition is going to take a long time if we want to do it without collapsing the current system. There is no other way.
​
Pointing the urgency is a good thing, but one need to be careful about the communication. Protests like this can be inspiring, but it can also have the opposite. Take the previous protests by extinction rebellion for example. The general public turned on them very quickly.
koreamax t1_j6bxew5 wrote
Seriously. People have no idea how most of the world is. It's not just maybe paying an extra 5 bucks a month for heating
ImjusttestingBANG t1_j6cfupp wrote
People have know how the world works they also know what will will happen if we don’t do act.
Fossil fuel companies have been playing delaying and denying tactics for years(since the 70s). They have lied , set up organisations to deny it’s happening, paid influencers and bought our politicians. We can’t leave it to companies whose best interest is served by maintaining the status quo. Continued sponsorship of their activities puts all our futures in danger.
Kaito__1412 t1_j6dao56 wrote
The whole conversation about climate change is getting super emotional and cynical. Everyone want's to lecture, instead of educate, inspire or motivate. I really don't see how this is going to change anything.
No one disagrees that fossil fuel companies overstayed their welcome and should be on their way out. But the conversations we have about that should be realistic and rational.
pzerr t1_j6duk8a wrote
Yes let us ensure countries like Russia become energy giants. That works out well.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments