Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[Ali G]

One works 24/7.

One does not.

Which receives the higher subsidy?

[Mr GrimNasty]

gofasterrosssco said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

steveT350C said:

Global spend is more for energy subsidies than healthcare

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/...

If you use the ecomentalist redefinition of 'subsidy', to make out oil/coal/gas is heavily subsidised but renewables aren't.

Both are subsidised - fossil fuels $550B / year vs. renewables $120B / year

That's my point, the definition of subsidy - they are not comparable.

Just to clarify - a real subsidy is something that makes an uneconomically viable activity worthwhile for a company.

Clearly fossil fuels do not require a subsidy, the free market demands and supports them, a tax break is not a subsidy in the true sense, counting supposed impacts of pollution is not a subsidy etc. etc.

The vast majority of renewables would not be entertained without a subsidy - they are not economically viable.

That's why there is a direct link between massively expensive domestic energy prices, and the amount of renewables in the mix.

Edited by Mr GrimNasty on Monday 3rd August 20:01

[LongQ]

gofasterrosssco said:

Both are subsidised - fossil fuels $550B / year vs. renewables $120B / year

Do you have a source for our your numbers?

[Mr GrimNasty]

LongQ said:

Do you have a source for our your numbers?

It's in the economist article linked above, it's completely misleading.

Far more energy comes from fossil fuels than renewables, the comparison should be per TwHr or whatever.

Also the definition of subsidy has been ridiculously distorted, fossil fuels are not subsidised at all in reality.

[AreOut]

Ali G said:

The Planet Has Been Saved!

God Bless Obama!

Not.

another Peace Prize is on the way...

[wc98]

Ali G said:

The Planet Has Been Saved!

God Bless Obama!

Not.

just listened to a bit of obamas speech on the news comparing carbon dioxide with arsenic and mercury. afaic he is either willfully ignorant or a fking liar. that someone like that can achieve the position of apparently the worlds most powerful man tells me the very best thing that could happen is sea levels rise 2000 feet or the entire globe freezes under a 2 mile thick ice sheet, because the human race is a complete and utter waste of fking space.

put the in a room alone with me for 5 mins and we will find out how powerful he is,utter, utter fking cretin.i hate these chicken little sky is falling bds with a passion.

[bodhi]

http://secondlanguage.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/the-s...

Interesting article I found on the Sir Tim Hunt debacle, but certain parallels are drawn to The Cause.

[Mr GrimNasty]

wc98 said:

Ali G said:

The Planet Has Been Saved!

God Bless Obama!

Not.

just listened to a bit of obamas speech on the news comparing carbon dioxide with arsenic and mercury. afaic he is either willfully ignorant or a fking liar. that someone like that can achieve the position of apparently the worlds most powerful man tells me the very best thing that could happen is sea levels rise 2000 feet or the entire globe freezes under a 2 mile thick ice sheet, because the human race is a complete and utter waste of fking space.

put the in a room alone with me for 5 mins and we will find out how powerful he is,utter, utter fking cretin.i hate these chicken little sky is falling bds with a passion.

Watts has done a rough calculation which shows their energy cost will go from 12c to 43c per kwh. Welcome to the asylum.

[robinessex]

I just find it amamzing that the (supposedly) most powerful man on the planet, the USA President, has swallowed the climate change factoid, and not taken the elimentary step to check he's not being fed b*******t. There is so much information, from people who know, that much of the climate change science is based on extremely suspect data and anaylsis. He stands to become the biggest, most gullable guy in history. PS. The BBC news coverage this morning was scyophanticaly disgusting.

[johnfm]

gofasterrosssco said:

Both are subsidised - fossil fuels $550B / year vs. renewables $120B / year

Er, is this the figure using that rather daft idea that the 'subsidy' should include made up estimate for environmental costs?

[johnfm]

wc98 said:

Ali G said:

The Planet Has Been Saved!

God Bless Obama!

Not.

just listened to a bit of obamas speech on the news comparing carbon dioxide with arsenic and mercury. afaic he is either willfully ignorant or a fking liar. that someone like that can achieve the position of apparently the worlds most powerful man tells me the very best thing that could happen is sea levels rise 2000 feet or the entire globe freezes under a 2 mile thick ice sheet, because the human race is a complete and utter waste of fking space.

put the in a room alone with me for 5 mins and we will find out how powerful he is,utter, utter fking cretin.i hate these chicken little sky is falling bds with a passion.

This morning's quote was even better - poor people suffer more from asthma (or azzzzma as they call it there!) - and he says that cutting CO2 emissions will reduce the incidence of asthma. I call bks on that.

[The Don of Croy]

johnfm said:

gofasterrosssco said:

Both are subsidised - fossil fuels $550B / year vs. renewables $120B / year

Er, is this the figure using that rather daft idea that the 'subsidy' should include made up estimate for environmental costs?

Appears the Guardian is all over it too - referencing a paper from the IMF that in turn links to various research to validate the claims.

As the IMF points out, it is estimated. How can anyone assess the possible economic effect of burning coal at Drax in 2015 and what it might do (or might not do) to AGW in years ahead?

Similarly they allow for an effect from road traffic accidents - a direct component of using 'fossil fuels' - until windfarm-fuelled leccy cars start mowing down pedestrians.

Under this type of analysis any activity could be traced back to man digging up carbon-based fuels...

Which is why we're going to need a supra-national body to orchestrate international fuel pricing (aka subsidy monitoring). Who could we trust to oversee such an endeavour? Any takers...?

[robinessex]

The Guardian (well, the out going editor that is/was) has the climate change thing badly, so you just have to iggy them. That's why I stopped buying it.

[johnfm]

The Don of Croy said:

johnfm said:

gofasterrosssco said:

Both are subsidised - fossil fuels $550B / year vs. renewables $120B / year

Er, is this the figure using that rather daft idea that the 'subsidy' should include made up estimate for environmental costs?

Appears the Guardian is all over it too - referencing a paper from the IMF that in turn links to various research to validate the claims.

As the IMF points out, it is estimated. How can anyone assess the possible economic effect of burning coal at Drax in 2015 and what it might do (or might not do) to AGW in years ahead?

Similarly they allow for an effect from road traffic accidents - a direct component of using 'fossil fuels' - until windfarm-fuelled leccy cars start mowing down pedestrians.

Under this type of analysis any activity could be traced back to man digging up carbon-based fuels...

Which is why we're going to need a supra-national body to orchestrate international fuel pricing (aka subsidy monitoring). Who could we trust to oversee such an endeavour? Any takers...?

In a nutshell, they can't. It is a massive load of misguided wk.

[gofasterrosssco]

Mr GrimNasty said:

gofasterrosssco said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

steveT350C said:

Global spend is more for energy subsidies than healthcare

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/...

If you use the ecomentalist redefinition of 'subsidy', to make out oil/coal/gas is heavily subsidised but renewables aren't.

Both are subsidised - fossil fuels $550B / year vs. renewables $120B / year

That's my point, the definition of subsidy - they are not comparable.

Just to clarify - a real subsidy is something that makes an uneconomically viable activity worthwhile for a company.

Clearly fossil fuels do not require a subsidy, the free market demands and supports them, a tax break is not a subsidy in the true sense, counting supposed impacts of pollution is not a subsidy etc. etc.

The vast majority of renewables would not be entertained without a subsidy - they are not economically viable.

That's why there is a direct link between massively expensive domestic energy prices, and the amount of renewables in the mix.

Edited by Mr GrimNasty on Monday 3rd August 20:01

Please show me how the subsidies are not comparable?

A mere Google shows that fossil fuels are subsidised by a huge extent in many domestic markets to keep costs to the end consumer down. Applying a very narrow definition of subsidy does not make them any more viable. Fossil fuels are very diverse, so some may be relative peanuts to produce and distribute, others may be very expensive (such as offshore Oil&Gas up here..)

The point I'm making, is that there needs to be a level playing field on sudsidy, which at present there isn't. We'll never get to the true cost of one vs. the other until that is resolved (not that it ever will be, realistically)

[gofasterrosssco]

johnfm said:

gofasterrosssco said:

Both are subsidised - fossil fuels $550B / year vs. renewables $120B / year

Er, is this the figure using that rather daft idea that the 'subsidy' should include made up estimate for environmental costs?

No, that was the "negative externalities" and was put at around $5.3Tn or something by the IMF - seems a bit of a wooly one TBH..

The $550B was the direct subsidy level

[XM5ER]

gofasterrosssco said:

No, that was the "negative externalities" and was put at around $5.3Tn or something by the IMF - seems a bit of a wooly one TBH..

The $550B was the direct subsidy level

Is this the old chestnut of "money not taken = subsidy". The figures include things such as the reduction of duty on fuel for energy intensive industries, you know, those industries that employ lots of people, pay lots of corp tax, vat, income tax, national insurance etc. Those industries that any sensible government wants to retain in its country in order to ensure that it's economy doesn't implode when it's service sector takes a downturn.

In terms of this logic, anyone who pays 40% income tax is subsidizing anyone who only pays 20% income tax.

[chris watton]

XM5ER said:

gofasterrosssco said:

No, that was the "negative externalities" and was put at around $5.3Tn or something by the IMF - seems a bit of a wooly one TBH..

The $550B was the direct subsidy level

Is this the old chestnut of "money not taken = subsidy". The figures include things such as the reduction of duty on fuel for energy intensive industries, you know, those industries that employ lots of people, pay lots of corp tax, vat, income tax, national insurance etc. Those industries that any sensible government wants to retain in its country in order to ensure that it's economy doesn't implode when it's service sector takes a downturn.

In terms of this logic, anyone who pays 40% income tax is subsidizing anyone who only pays 20% income tax.

By that crazy logic (gofasterrosssco), every one in work who isn't paying 100% tax is being subsidised!

Edited by chris watton on Tuesday 4th August 10:53

[robinessex]

It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

Richard P. Feynman

Copy to one Barrack Obama USA

[gofasterrosssco]

chris watton said:

XM5ER said:

gofasterrosssco said:

No, that was the "negative externalities" and was put at around $5.3Tn or something by the IMF - seems a bit of a wooly one TBH..

The $550B was the direct subsidy level

Is this the old chestnut of "money not taken = subsidy". The figures include things such as the reduction of duty on fuel for energy intensive industries, you know, those industries that employ lots of people, pay lots of corp tax, vat, income tax, national insurance etc. Those industries that any sensible government wants to retain in its country in order to ensure that it's economy doesn't implode when it's service sector takes a downturn.

In terms of this logic, anyone who pays 40% income tax is subsidizing anyone who only pays 20% income tax.

By that crazy logic (gofasterrosssco), every one in work who isn't paying 100% tax is being subsidised!

Edited by chris watton on Tuesday 4th August 10:53

I don't know the breakdown of the subsidy levels for the quoted $550B, I'm just quoting headline global figures from the IMF and IEA - as noted, the societal subsidy infered by the term externalities due to polution and health costs, is put at $5.3Tn. I don't agree with that as its very speculative.

Likewise, there seems to be the assumption that all renewables subsidy is in direct cash handouts, which its not, and you can apply all of the potential benefits in relation to employment, income tax revenue etc. to many of the renewables industries, as you can with any heavily subsidised nuclear project.

Again, my point is that subsidies distorts the true cost of energy from different sources. Renewables is still likely to be more expensive (and play a small overall percentage in the energy mix), but the implicit "cost per MWh" is perhaps not a true reflection of unsubsidised energy production cost (at least, its very clouded).