• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fossil fuels subsidised by $10m a minute, says IMF

I.

So you are telling us that the "income tax free loader" and tax payer want to punish gas and oil companies BECAUSE of they are unwilling to be be held responsible as the purchasers and consumers of gas and oil...the ones that do the polluting?

Frankly I would not have thought anyone would have the chutzpah quote the polling of the mob's prejudices as evidence being "on to something", other than as an example mass man's inability to see beyond the hobe-goblinization of those that provide them the means to live in the age of electricity - how terrible :roll:.

As I said "the (environmental) impacts you speak of is not from the fossil fuel industry - it is almost entirely due to those taxpayers (and the 47 percent of non-taxpayers) who use fossil fuel in their business, job, or home. It's rather disingenuous for a consumer to blame an industry for their (own) choice to consume (its' products).".

II.

Your cite of the CSM is a good illustration: without an honest definition of the meaning of a real "subsidy" and an understanding of who actually get's a subsidy then any broad claims by the fossil fuel haters is bogus and disingenuous posturing. The article tosses around words like "tax breaks" and makes broad and unsupported claims of 41 billion (or more) in subsidies - the author never bothering to detail or explain how he arrives at this number.

Most likely the author (like Obama) is speaking of broadly available tax provisions are not fossil fuel subsidies. For example, there is the Section 199 deduction, which goes to all domestic manufacturing. A producer of clothing, roads, electricity, water, and many other goods produced in the United States are all eligible for the manufacturer’s tax deduction - including music and movie production. Whether or not domestic producers should get this credit is a matter of opinion, but Oil and Gas are no more "subsidized" by this deduction than other US producers.

In fact, Oil/Gas is already targeted for special punitive tax treatment. Congress has already imposed frozen the deduction at 6 percent when other manufacturers receive a 9 percent deduction. In other words, they are targeted for tax increases compared to other domestic producers.

Another example is in foreign tax credits and the deferral of foreign income. The FTC and deferral are two a part of a system that prevents the U.S. corporate income tax from double taxing—and further harming—the international competitiveness of U.S. companies. Foreign tax credits and deferral of foreign income is not unique to the oil industry, but it is often lambasted as a "subsidy" for "big oil" as if it were unique to the oil industry.

Finally, there is the depletion allowance - which is a depreciation for an asset such as the amount of unknown recoverable oil from a well. Independent oil and gas producers use a depletion allowance to recover capital investments, which is also used in mining, timber, geothermal steam, and other natural deposits. Whether or not the credit rate is appropriate, is a matter of professional dispute. But it is not a special "subsidy" to the gas/oil industry.

The fossil fuel haters keep the print and internet press rolling with lots of lurid claims, throwing everything into a stew of "subsidy". Whether or not some (or any) of it is an actual subsidy that is given to the oil/gas industry is an entirely different matter.

To the bolded, Such hyperbole doesn't lend itself to meaningful debate. We all use fossil fuel on some level in our lives, as that's what's been made available. Because there are those of us that are practicing the stewardship of using renewables, and advocating strident R&D to develop/discover additional forms of clean renewables, does not mean we are haters. Let me ask you, if you could flip a switch, and the world was run, as it is today, although on clean renewables, are you telling me that you'd fight flipping the switch? So unfortunately, it's not that easy. Nevertheless, it's prudent to be working toward that end.
 
But I can't understand why you call it a debacle. That since 1990 Germany have steadily decrease their CO2 output at the same time they have had a good economical growth compared to other developed countires, That you can see in this graph.

http://energytransition.de/files/GET_1A1_growing_economy_declining_emissions_l.png

That yes the decline stoped temporarily because they stoped using eight nuclear plans after Fukushima. But in 2014 the decline countinued and renewable energy is planned to countinue to grow.

Renewables help cut German CO2 emissions | Environment | DW.DE | 08.01.2015

You can of course argue that it was bad to close down nuclear power .But nuclear power plant is dependent on goverment assistance and the goveremant willingness to take risks. That no power company I know of can afford to pay insurance that cover all the cost from a nuclear meltdown. As I understand it power company that own nuclear plants don't even have insurance to cover the cost of dismantling nuclear plants and long storage of nuclear materia if they go bankrupt. Something they really need because the cost of dismantle nuclear plants and long storage of nuclear material will be a huge cost for goverment to pay for if power companies go bankrupt and their are no money left to cover those cost.

Also you have not provided any links to your claim and no link to refute my links about the declining cost of solar power. Here is some more links about the decreasing cost of renewable energy.

Falling costs for wind, and other top 5 takeaways from new Wall Street report – Into the Wind


New-generation solar panels far cheaper, more efficient: scientists | Reuters

Solar Costs Will Fall Another 40% In 2 Years. Here's Why.

Also of course it can be problems with new energy sources like solar power that need to resolve. But those problems are nothing compared to the problems and cost of being dependent of oil fron Middle east. Think of how USA and UK overthrowed the democratic Iran goverment because the goverment wanted to nationalized the oil industry and increase the cost of oil in 50:s. You also have had the first oil crises in 1973 and the Iranian revolution and the resulting energy crisis in 1979. Then you had the costly Gulf War. Then you had 9/11 their most of terrorist came from one of the worlds biggest oil producer Saudi Arabia and their Saudi Arabia both before and after the atack was accused of being one of the worlds biggest funders of fundamentalists and terrorist organizations. After that you had the Iraq war. To today then ISIS is both taking over and profiting from oil fields.

Ask their own Finance minister, who last year declared their " Green revolution " on the verge of total failure if its a debacle or not.

He'll agree with me, that it is.

Do you know what Germanys top energy import is since they entered into this STUPID green revolution ?

Its Coal. Thats because Germany is now more dependant on Lignite ( the dirtiest of Coal power production ) than they were before they shut down their nukes.

So now the German citizens pay 300 percent more than American citizens for their electricity and their air is dirtier than ever.

Ridiculous.....and all based on perpetuated on a HUGE lie. That man is causing Global warming. These ideological hacks, these people should be in prison for what's essentially selling the German people a huge bottle of snale oil.

Their charlatans.

And the US has enough oil reserves and natural gas reserves to be totally independent from OPEC.
 
To the bolded, Such hyperbole doesn't lend itself to meaningful debate. We all use fossil fuel on some level in our lives, as that's what's been made available. Because there are those of us that are practicing the stewardship of using renewables, and advocating strident R&D to develop/discover additional forms of clean renewables, does not mean we are haters. Let me ask you, if you could flip a switch, and the world was run, as it is today, although on clean renewables, are you telling me that you'd fight flipping the switch? So unfortunately, it's not that easy. Nevertheless, it's prudent to be working toward that end.

None the less, the sensationalist and undefined claims by the fossil fuel haters is bogus and disingenuous posturing. As I said, the article tosses around words like "tax breaks" and makes broad and unsupported claims of 41 billion (or more) in subsidies - the author never bothering to detail or explain how he arrives at this number.

Whether or not you are a member of this sect of bird and bunny folk I do not know - nor do I care. There is a large body of corporation hating hypocrites that choose to use the very products they excoriate.

If 'clean renewables' were actually clean, cheaper than current systems, did not cause other harms, and were as routinely available today's fuel powered grid - then I'd flip the switch. But as that is not the reality, nor will it be for many decades, it is little more than a hypothetical.
 
None the less, the sensationalist and undefined claims by the fossil fuel haters is bogus and disingenuous posturing. As I said, the article tosses around words like "tax breaks" and makes broad and unsupported claims of 41 billion (or more) in subsidies - the author never bothering to detail or explain how he arrives at this number.

Whether or not you are a member of this sect of bird and bunny folk I do not know - nor do I care. There is a large body of corporation hating hypocrites that choose to use the very products they excoriate.

If 'clean renewables' were actually clean, cheaper than current systems, did not cause other harms, and were as routinely available today's fuel powered grid - then I'd flip the switch. But as that is not the reality, nor will it be for many decades, it is little more than a hypothetical.

Dude???? The bolded again. We're all on this marry go round powered by fossil fuel. There's not a thing wrong with pushing for alternatives, and in fact those that do, do so nobly.
 
Last edited:
But I can't understand why you call it a debacle. That since 1990 Germany have steadily decrease their CO2 output at the same time they have had a good economical growth compared to other developed countires, ...Solar Costs Will Fall Another 40% In 2 Years. Here's Why.[/url]...

I never cease marveling at the true believer, those who always hide under a soft and obscuring light of hope, terrified of what lurks in the shadowed reality of actual experience. I will help you face it.

High Costs and Errors of German Transition to Renewable Energy - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Germany's aggressive and reckless expansion of wind and solar power has come with a hefty pricetag for consumers, and the costs often fall disproportionately on the poor. Government advisors are calling for a completely new start.

...The government predicts that the renewable energy surcharge added to every consumer's electricity bill will increase from 5.3 cents today to between 6.2 and 6.5 cents per kilowatt hour -- a 20-percent price hike.

German consumers already pay the highest electricity prices in Europe. But because the government is failing to get the costs of its new energy policy under control, rising prices are already on the horizon. Electricity is becoming a luxury good in Germany, and one of the country's most important future-oriented projects is acutely at risk.

...Even well-informed citizens can no longer keep track of all the additional costs being imposed on them. According to government sources, the surcharge to finance the power grids will increase by 0.2 to 0.4 cents per kilowatt hour next year. On top of that, consumers pay a host of taxes, surcharges and fees that would make any consumer's head spin.

For society as a whole, the costs have reached levels comparable only to the euro-zone bailouts. This year, German consumers will be forced to pay €20 billion ($26 billion) for electricity from solar, wind and biogas plants -- electricity with a market price of just over €3 billion. Even the figure of €20 billion is disputable if you include all the unintended costs and collateral damage associated with the project.

...On the other hand, when the wind suddenly stops blowing, and in particular during the cold season, supply becomes scarce. That's when heavy oil and coal power plants have to be fired up to close the gap, which is why Germany's energy producers in 2012 actually released more climate-damaging carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than in 2011.

If there is still an electricity shortfall, energy-hungry plants like the ArcelorMittal steel mill in Hamburg are sometimes asked to shut down production to protect the grid. Of course, ordinary electricity customers are then expected to pay for the compensation these businesses are entitled to for lost profits.

The government has high hopes for the expansion of offshore wind farms. But the construction sites are in a state of chaos...

On Thursday, a government-sanctioned commission plans to submit a special report called "Competition in Times of the Energy Transition." The report is sharply critical, arguing that Germany's current system actually rewards the most inefficient plants, doesn't contribute to protecting the climate, jeopardizes the energy supply and puts the poor at a disadvantage.

...Becker wants to prevent his clients from having their electricity shut off for not paying their bill. After sending out a few warning notices, the power company typically sends someone to the apartment to shut off the power -- leaving the customers with no functioning refrigerator, stove or bathroom fan. Unless they happen to have a camping stove, they can't even boil water for a cup of tea. It's like living in the Stone Age.

In the near future, an average three-person household will spend about €90 a month for electricity. That's about twice as much as in 2000.
Two-thirds of the price increase is due to new government fees, surcharges and taxes. But despite those price hikes, government pensions and social welfare payments have not been adjusted. As a result, every new fee becomes a threat to low-income consumers.

To Be Continued...
 
Consumer advocates and aid organizations say the breaking point has already been reached. Today, more than 300,000 households a year are seeing their power shut off because of unpaid bills. Caritas and other charity groups call it "energy poverty."

Experts believe that because of the more challenging conditions, the power offshore wind turbines generate will be consistently two to three times as expensive as on land. ... New high-voltage power lines will be needed to transport the energy to industrial centers in western and southern Germany. The government already estimates the costs of expanding the grid at €20 billion, which doesn't include the additional ocean cables for offshore wind power.

If the government sticks to its plans, the price of electricity will literally explode in the coming years. According to a current study for the federal government, electricity will cost up to 40 cents a kilowatt-hour by 2020, a 40-percent increase over today's prices.
...
All this gives credence to the claim that Germany's energy reform is its own worst enemy. Despite the erratic expansion of wind and solar projects, the backup power capacity those projects require is lacking. One study found that Germany's expansion of renewable energy will require additional storage capacity for 20 to 30 billion kilowatt-hours by 2050. So far the storage capacity has grown by little more than 70 million kilowatt-hours. And hardly anyone is interested in maintaining the existing storage facilities.

Germany's Energy Poverty: The Regressive Energy Tax - SPIEGEL ONLINE
 
Angela Merkel’s Vice Chancellor Stuns, Declares Germany’s ‘Energiewende’ To Be On ‘The Verge Of Failure’! | NoTricksZone

I luv the part where the audience couldn't believe what they just heard (3:03 mark of video).

The mood at SMA Solar, which has been a huge benefactor of the renewable energy subsidies brought on by Germany’s EEG feed-in act, was somber and shock and Gabriel delivered the reality. Many in attendance seemed unable to fathom what Gabriel was unloading: the heady days at the green energy feeding trough are over – live with it.

The European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) here writes:

The responsible persons in attendance at the Hessen-based photovoltaic SMA Solar and all the other profiteers of the EEG feed-in act saw their jaws drop when this late and blunt admission was made.”
 
Dude???? The bolded again. We're all on this marry go round powered by fossil fuel. There's not a thing wrong with pushing for alternatives, and in fact those that do, do so nobly.

Yes there is something wrong with pushing a bromide that is economically inefficient, requires higher electricity rates, and that must be subsidized by the tax payer. There is nothing 'noble' in the delusion that good intentions justify unfair, inefficient, and poorly executed results.

"Dude"...
 
Yes there is something wrong with pushing a bromide that is economically inefficient, requires higher electricity rates, and that must be subsidized by the tax payer. There is nothing 'noble' in the delusion that good intentions justify unfair, inefficient, and poorly executed results.

"Dude"...

And you don't get it either. The renewable that will be replacing the non-renewable, may not even have been exploited/invented or discovered yet. Instead of figuring out how he could reconfigure his factory to produce steering wheels, the buggy whip manufacturer cursed the invention of the automobile. You guys that are backwards viewers set yourselves down in the oil pits, and the rest will look forward to the next innovation and the next for the answers to the problems that will confront future generations, one of which will most certainly be war. And certainly reducing the causes for war is another point of humanitarian nobility.
 
And you don't get it either. The renewable that will be replacing the non-renewable, may not even have been exploited/invented or discovered yet. Instead of figuring out how he could reconfigure his factory to produce steering wheels, the buggy whip manufacturer cursed the invention of the automobile. You guys that are backwards viewers set yourselves down in the oil pits, and the rest will look forward to the next innovation and the next for the answers to the problems that will confront future generations, one of which will most certainly be war. And certainly reducing the causes for war is another point of humanitarian nobility.

I certainly get that you think that inveighed platitudes and moralistic tripe can substitute for actual results. Rest assured, today's buggy whip manufacturer would be first in line for a benighted government subsidy for research and production of "solar powered buggy whips",just as every solar panel charlatan and electric powered car grifter were big-time stimulus fund leeches in the recession.

Apparently you don't know that there is a huge difference between the market driven efforts of Thomas Edison and crony left subsidized "progress" of Solyndra.
 
Last edited:
Green energy is too expensive. :roll:

Fossil fuels subsidised by $10m a minute, says IMF | Environment | The Guardian

Fossil fuel companies are benefiting from global subsidies of $5.3tn (£3.4tn) a year, equivalent to $10m a minute every day, according to a startling new estimate by the International Monetary Fund. The IMF calls the revelation “shocking” and says the figure is an “extremely robust” estimate of the true cost of fossil fuels. The $5.3tn subsidy estimated for 2015 is greater than the total health spending of all the world’s governments. The vast sum is largely due to polluters not paying the costs imposed on governments by the burning of coal, oil and gas. These include the harm caused to local populations by air pollution as well as to people across the globe affected by the floods, droughts and storms being driven by climate change. Nicholas Stern, an eminent climate economist at the London School of Economics, said: “This very important analysis shatters the myth that fossil fuels are cheap by showing just how huge their real costs are. There is no justification for these enormous subsidies for fossil fuels, which distort markets and damages economies, particularly in poorer countries.”

Lord Stern said that even the IMF’s vast subsidy figure was a significant underestimate: “A more complete estimate of the costs due to climate change would show the implicit subsidies for fossil fuels are much bigger even than this report suggests.” The IMF, one of the world’s most respected financial institutions, said that ending subsidies for fossil fuels would cut global carbon emissions by 20%. That would be a giant step towards taming global warming, an issue on which the world has made little progress to date. Ending the subsidies would also slash the number of premature deaths from outdoor air pollution by 50% – about 1.6 million lives a year. Furthermore, the IMF said the resources freed by ending fossil fuel subsidies could be an economic “game-changer” for many countries, by driving economic growth and poverty reduction through greater investment in infrastructure, health and education and also by cutting taxes that restrict growth.

Ah. Nevermind, then. Thought this might actually be serious.
 
Yes, I understand that, I wonder how many times Wilber said that to Orville?

And I wonder how many times they got a government subsidy for their bicycle business and inventive efforts? How many times did their customers get a 'tax rebate' or 'tax credit' for buying their airplane?

The answer is zero.
 
Last edited:
I certainly get that you think that inveighed platitudes and moralistic tripe can substitute for actual results. Rest assured, today's buggy whip manufacturer would be first in line for a benighted government subsidy for research and production of "solar powered buggy whips",just as every solar panel charlatan and electric powered car grifter were big-time stimulus fund leeches in the recession.

Apparently you don't know that there is a huge difference between the market driven efforts of Thomas Edison and crony left subsidized "progress" of Solyndra.

I never spoke to Thomas Edison. And you are too hateful and bigoted to be either objective or effective, :2wave:
 
And I wonder how many times they got a government subsidy for their bicycle business and inventive efforts? How many times did their customers get a 'tax rebate' or 'tax credit' for buying their airplane?

The answer is zero.

That too ignores MY point. Again, :2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom