Fossil Fuel Subsidies Dwarf Support For Renewables

TravisTR sends word of research from Bloomberg New Energy Finance which found that direct subsidies for renewable energy from governments worldwide totaled $43-46 billion in 2009, an amount vastly outstripped by the $557 billion in fossil fuel subsidies during 2008. "The BNEF preliminary analysis suggests the US is the top country, as measured in dollars deployed, in providing direct subsidies for clean energy with an estimated $18.2bn spent in total in 2009. Approximately 40% of this went toward supporting the US biofuels sector with the rest going towards renewables. The federal stimulus program played a key role; its Treasury Department grant program alone provided $3.8bn in support for clean energy projects. China, the world leader in new wind installations in 2009 with 14GW, provided approximately $2bn in direct subsidies, according to the preliminary analysis. This figure is deceptive, however, as much crucial support for clean energy in the country comes in form of low-interest loans from state-owned banks. State-run power generators and grid companies have also been strongly encouraged by the government to tap their balance sheets in support of renewables."

Re:One less counter-argument...

[ickleberry]

Here in ireland the refinery price for petrol is ~42c per litre. But with tax, transport, more tax and whatever the petrol station adds onto the price it costs 1.27e to 1.37e per litre.

There are 3 separate taxes on petrol - excise which is like a 'sin tax' is about 60c, VAT is just over 20c and a ~5c 'carbon tax'. Ethanol isn't subsidised but has a reduced excise tax.

So you probably wouldn't be paying all *that* much for it if you weren't being taxed to the hilt

Re:Isn't anything bio+energy bad?

[piotru]

Maybe off point, but with my wife we used to joke: if the color is green, it must be healthy.
Last year we went to a vineyard in France, where the owner explained he had not applied for the "Bio" label because he used modern selective fungicides, thus his soil is alive. The "Bio" use copper sulfide at such quantities as to completely eradicate the microbial life from their soils. I prefer not to think what they drink from their wells. As agricultural engineer I think this case of "Bio" is entirely harmful.

Re:Where is the study?

[BigSlowTarget]

A quick search found this $557 billion is primarily from China, Venezuela, Egypt Iraq and Iran consumer subsidies. When the government owns the oil company the subsidy is not making the owner rich. It might help the less well off more than the better off through reduction of gas costs but study results seem mixed.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-07/ending-fossil-fuel-aid-will-cut-oil-demand-iea-says-update1-.html

The number $557 came from the IEA

http://www.iea.org/files/energy_subsidies.pdf

Re:No Surprises Here

[Geoffrey.landis]

Without subsidies your electricity bill would be larger.

And that would be a good thing. It makes sense that the people who use electricity should pay for electricity.
This is known as a "market economy," and it encourages things like efficiency, and matching the supply to the demand.

There's some sense to subsidizing an emerging technology: encouraging the fledgling technologies in hope some of them will grow could result in a large payout further down the line. There's no sense in subsidizing the giants.

...In the case of the major oil companies it's very dubious that they should still get handouts, but some of the tax breaks have been useful to small operators...

And only a trivial percentage of the tax breaks actually go to small operators, because the big operators have much more money to lobby with; and also much more money to pay lawyers to find the loopholes to enable them to qualify for the subsidies intended to support small operators. (Much like farm subsidies, actually-- the bills that are passed because they will be "supporting America's family farms" actually end up supporting the huge factory operations.)

Re:No Surprises Here

[NatasRevol]

Not sure how my comment is flamebait.

Bush 2 increased the national debt from ~$6T to ~$11T.

http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm [skymachines.com]

Second only to Reagan, and just ahead of his father in terms of percentage increase.