Tightening the tap

[CubanExpress]

Tightening the tap on '$1 trillion' a year fossil fuel subsidies

By Eoghan Macguire, for CNN
July 18, 2012
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/18/busin ... index.html

(CNN) -- Political consensus was hard to find at last month's Rio +20 Earth Summit but there was at least one group speaking with unity on the planet's environmental and economic future.

Hundreds of activists gathered on the city's Copacabana Beach to make a simple demand of their elected leaders and representatives: Commit to ending fossil fuel subsidies, now.

More than a million people around the world -- including actor Robert Redford and comedian Stephen Fry - were quick to lend their support by backing #endfossilfuelsubsidies, an affiliated online campaign.

But as the summit came to a close it became clear that no new enforceable commitments on the issue were to be included in the final version of the Rio agreement text.

For those behind the protest however, the widespread exposure and support afforded the oft ignored subject ensured their efforts still represented a success.

"This all falls into changing our energy usage patterns, which I believe is the pre-eminent challenge of the 21st century," says Steve Kretzmann, founder of Oil Change International, an environmental advocacy group that backs the #endfossilfuelsubsidies campaign.

"The first place to start is to stop putting public money towards fossil fuels," he adds.

"This is not because anybody has it in for the fossil fuel industry. What we're talking about is what the public's money actually should support."

Estimates as to how much this support equates to vary from study to study, as do methods and standards for calculation.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) reported that internationally $409 billion worth of government money flowed into the coffers of the fossil fuel industry in consumption subsidies (designed to make fuel more affordable and accessible to the consumer) in 2010.

A separate study from the U.S. Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that global fossil fuel subsidies will reach $775 billion this year when producer subsidies (designed to facilitate greater fuel production) are added on.

However Kretzmann believes these figures may only be the tip of the iceberg and could actually top $1 trillion every year.

He says there is often a lack of transparency in how some governments report the incentives, with many transferred as hard-to-calculate tax credits.

Kretzmann similarly laments the comparatively sparse investment in renewable energy subsidies (which stood at $66 billion in 2010 according to the IEA) as a wasted opportunity to create less polluting energy sources whilst encouraging growth in the green economy.

"At the end of the day, not only is this bad policy but its also bad economics," he says.

"Long term, renewables are a better option for the environment and the economy. There are multiple studies that show how much more labor intensive renewables are and how they create more jobs per unit of energy created."

[Green Tide]

Hey Steve
Blah blah blah. Get a job

[crashmister]

There's a reason we pay less for a gallon of gas than almost everyone save the middle East. One thing Steve missed is how much do you think it costs the average American to keep the military presents we have in the middle East? Short of the war support the rest is to keep the oil shipping lanes open. If we leave, the saudi's would have to truck their oil to Oman through the UAE just to get it to a port. Iran really don't need a navy, it can reach anything in the straits of Hormuz from land. that pretty much cut's off the oil from Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. And makes Iran a new super power in the mid East.

[CubanExpress]

Screw the oil shipping lanes. We get at least 75% of our crude oil from non Arab states. The remaining 25% can be synthetically made right here in America. For the ones that have to rely on middle eastern oil, let them deal with it. We're always sticking our nose where it doesn't belong. The only thing we accomplish by doing so is wasting resources and draining our economy. The U.S. armed forces would only need a fraction of it's budget if it was strictly utilized to protect our borders and patrol our coastlines. Subsidizing states that would fight against you in a war on any given day with hundreds of billion of dollars every year is extremely stupid.

[crashmister]

Preaching to the choir here Buddy. What's a mith is drilling for more here is the only way out. All we really need to do is get 5 more MPG out of everything with wheels or starting right now, convert every fleet vehicle to propane or nat gas. I can't remember how many generator systems I've installed that run off nat gas. It would create an LNG boom that could easily drive the recovery. So why not do it? 2 words, Oil Lobby!

[jezratty]

imho fossil fuels will lead to the demise of modern society as we know it.. something's eventually gotta give.. we have the technlogy to tap into other natural sources of energy( geothermal, hydroelectric, solar power ect..), but chose not to because the big businesses that control this planet would be very sad to loose all that profit!!..
any of you guys familiar with the zeitgeist movement? if you have the time i definitely reccomend checking out the documentaries.. opened my eyes to a lot!!

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/