It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fossil Fuels Subsidised By $10m a Minute, Says IMF

page: 2
26
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2015 @ 04:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Where on earth do the rich put their money? "Well they put some of it into investments with companies such as the oil companies so they get a big fat return on their investments - these are safe investments held in the hands of the elite like the Bush family, the royal dutch queenie and our elite lot etc. So if people are thinking that fossil fuels won't get subsidies from the public purse to put into the dividends of the rich they are naive.

Its all about if you are rich where is a safe investment and how do you keep it safe - by controlling the legislation that affects your share portfolio's investment companies of course as well as the directorships of these companies which many of them sit on for even more financial benefit.




posted on May, 19 2015 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74

Fossil fuel companies are benefitting 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.


The Guardian

Please tell us again how costly it will be to switch to renewables.


This is what the "deregulate" folks simply do.... not.... get...

Doing business as usual, without proper regulation, means that MOST companies are not paying the true cost of doing business, from environmental to social impacts. These consequences and very real costs, fallaciously called "externalities," are not being paid for by the very companies who are creating them.

Hence, proper regulation AND economic incentives are needed in order to make companies internalize these "externalities," pay the true cost, and sink or swim according to the reality of their impact.

Any person who actually is educated on the fact that such things as energy companies are causing far more negative impact to others than they are paying for or "being responsible for" and still believes the government has no right to make them account for it is deluded.

I would like to remind conservatives, libertarians, and Republicans on here that ostensibly conservatives believe in full responsibility, both for individuals and organizations.

If that is true, and you wish to be consistent with your principles, then you should have zero problem with companies being forced to pay the true costs of their business. This is what proper regulation (not bad regulations) is supposed to do in part.
edit on 19-5-2015 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
I would like to remind conservatives, libertarians, and Republicans on here that ostensibly conservatives believe in full responsibility, both for individuals and organizations.

If that is true, and you wish to be consistent with your principles, then you should have zero problem with companies being forced to pay the true costs of their business. This is what proper regulation (not bad regulations) is supposed to do in part.


I'm a Libertarian that believes this.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 08:42 AM
link   
So the status quo costs the worlds population $5trillion dollars, and on the flip side any potential carbon tax would also cost us trillions of dollars but would also fund alternative research and fund clean up.


I read a story a few years ago that the oil industry in Texas was booming to the point that the traffic on some paved roads from there trucks was destroying the roads, the state legislature attempted to pass legislation that would fix the damage but the industry refused to go along with it to the point that in some Texas counties they were going from paved roads back to gravel roads.


The article claims that these subsidies are being used to clean up the mess that oil companies refuse to take responsibilities for and to just line there bottom line, and a carbon tax would be used to clean up the mess oil companies would be responsible for plus research, and oils companies are currently funding much of the anti climate change research.

Since the fossil fuel industry already cost the world $5trillion dollars I now support the carbon tax, at least the population of the world would get a clear benefit from it. Because any way we go its already costing us big money.
edit on 19-5-2015 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2015 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2015 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2015 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: LDragonFire

Yes because taxing companies or people and giving the money to Government has always worked so well in the past. Why not give them 5 trillion and see how wisely the world's governments spend it. This is what separates the Libs and the Conservatives. Libs believe that Government works despite reality. Giving money to Washington or any other bloated inept morons will have 80% of the money wasted. Also, pray tell, when you tax the oil companies to death who do you think pays for it? Why do oil companies have so much money? Where does the largess come from?


V



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
I would like to remind conservatives, libertarians, and Republicans on here that ostensibly conservatives believe in full responsibility, both for individuals and organizations.

If that is true, and you wish to be consistent with your principles, then you should have zero problem with companies being forced to pay the true costs of their business. This is what proper regulation (not bad regulations) is supposed to do in part.


I'm a Libertarian that believes this.


And I respect you for it. I actually respect the libertarian movement out of the conservative movements the most, because on average you guys seem to be more consistent in the application of your principles.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Variable

We are already paying for it! What are we getting out of it now?



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3
a reply to: amazing

You consider basically limitless and uninterrupted energy to power all of your electronic devices, AC, and general appliances outrageous in cost? I am always shocked at how low my energy bill is in comparison to how much electricity I used that month, and how much that access to power increased my quality of life overall.

I don't blame you though...when you have nothing serious to worry about you take on stupid crap like this to fight against.

Keep it up!


LOL Between my business and my house, I pay almost $1,000 a month just in power in the Summer per month. That's outrageous to me. What's worse is that the cost keeps going up every year. I can't afford it. Living in Southern Nevada. I have to pay that because I can't functionally live in 100-120 degree heat for 4-5 months out of the year. I have plenty to worry about, probably more than you do and this isn't stupid crap.

I'm talking about affordable energy, cheaper energy, and less pollution. Apparently that's stupid crap to you?



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

It's all that 7 billion people exist for... to make the rich, richer.

Yes - but, at least we still have our dignity

:-)

The takeaway here is that major oil companies like Shell couldn’t exist without their continued support from the world’s taxpayers.


According to an investigation by the Guardian, Shell’s internal projections for expected climate change are for nearly twice the level that scientists consider to be safe. Yet the company continues to push for drilling in ever more difficult places, like the Arctic. A study in January, which helped spur the Guardian’s own climate advocacy and this weekend’s Seattle protests, said that for the world to keep its commitment to holding global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius, 100 percent of Arctic oil reserves would have to stay in the ground.

Emphasis mine. Is it just me...?


In 2013, former NASA climate scientist James Hansen predicted this growing surge of climate activism and even called for “a human ‘tipping point’ ”— sudden nearly universal recognition of climate action as a non-negotiable moral issue deserving immediate action—as one of the few remaining interventions that could steer humanity off its business-as-usual course of plundering the atmosphere’s remaining carbon budget. H


Which is why all the pro-drilling/fracking/big energy business as usual TV advertising is happening now. A good sign that they're at least nervous

Dunno Kali - I bounce back and forth between hope and despair. Stuff like this helps:

Kayaktavists Take Over Seattle's Port to Protest Shell Oil's Arctic Drilling Rig


So why not imagine a world in which a feeble flotilla of kayaks can stop an oil behemoth? That’s exactly the kind of scenario in which success starts to feel inevitable instead of unimaginable. That’s why the kayaks were out there.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Just going to leave this here:
Fighting Climate Change and Creating "Green Jobs": Is Hemp the Silver Bullet?


So, how does hemp stack up when compared to corn or sugar cane? Writing in Salon, Steven Wishnia remarks that hemp oil for bio-fuel "is unlikely to be practical." At 50 gallons per acre, he explains, "even if every acre of U.S. cropland were used for hemp, it would supply current U.S. demand for oil for less than three weeks." Nevertheless, hemp biomass can be converted into many diverse fuels such as methane, methanol and gasoline. Moreover, planting hemp arguably represents a more efficient use of land and resources than corn or sugarcane. That is so because hemp can be used for fuel but also for food and, according to AlterNet, its seeds contain "roughly four times the cellulose biomass potential of corn." Best of all, hemp grows very fast and leaves the soil in good shape.

In addition to bio-fuel, could hemp also lead to other benefits --- like helping restore the earth's climate equilibrium? The short answer seems to be, yes. As hemp grows, it "sequesters" or captures carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Hemp is able to sequester such large amounts of carbon because it grows very tall --- between 9 and 12 feet to be exact --- within a very short span of time. Furthermore, when hemp is manufactured into masonry this acts as a carbon sink: the carbon is literally locked into the building material.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

OK this story is why liberal logic always fails.....Look at what these subsidies actually are. And before you say I am pro-oil I think we should have ditched this form of fuel many years ago and for many reasons including the planets health.




Progressive liberals want carbon taxes put in place so they can get rich.........They could care less about the planet. Men like Gore only care about themselves. And before you say well that's not true....How many fracking campaigns has Gore started.....YA.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Makes you wonder what the real cost of gas at the pump, including subsidies.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: SubTruth




How many fracking campaigns has Gore started.....YA.


I dunno - how many?

:-)



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Don't you guys ever fact check anything????????



The Guardian claims:

"Fossil fuel companies are benefitting 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. "

That's not true. The IMF introduction to the paper carries this, prominent, disclaimer:

"This Working Paper should not be reported as representing the views of the IMF. The views expressed in this Working Paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the IMF or IMF policy. Working Papers describe research in progress by the author(s) and are published to elicit comments and to further debate"

Reading the paper (which can be freely downloaded) as far as the first paragraphs of the Introduction we soon arrive at these two claims:

"Energy subsidies discourage needed investments in energy efficiency, renewables, and energy infrastructure, and increase the vulnerability of countries to volatile international energy prices."

"Energy subsidies are a highly inefficient way to provide support to low-income households since most of the benefits from energy subsidies are typically captured by rich households."

For the first of these claims I see no evidence in this country of a reluctance to invest in energy efficiency improvements - a glance at the government statistics on household insulation standards shows substantial progress in this area - loft insulation, draught exclusion, double glazing, cavity wall insulation, etc. Nor do I see any evidence whatsoever of a reluctance to invest in renewables. I wonder if the authors might consider why that is? Could it be the massive subsidies given to renewables?

And I agree entirely with the second paragraph, because regressive subsidy of renewables has helped the land-owning, owner-occupier population to take full advantage of ROCs and FITs schemes in an orgy of regressive taxation. After all, the Church of England, with solar panels on church rooves, knows all about that.

This is cheap, lazy journalism as practised by a master of that art


Excellent comment made by Capell at Bishop Hill Blog......



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: SubTruth

Carbon taxes aren't the only solution and there's such a thing as revenue neutral taxes. We are being taxed literally to death to keep fossil fuels going, do you get that? Subsidized at a rate of 10M per minute... that means our tax dollars. Revenue neutral taxing would mean fossil fuels paying the actual cost of doing business, not us taxpayers from around the world paying it for them and it also means that money doesn't go into the government either, it comes right back to the taxpayers. Then on top of that, the price of fossil fuels doesn't go up because as soon as it does so does their taxes which come back to us which we can use to pay for our energy. They still make huge profits, we still have energy. They also lose their stranglehold on world governments which means we can drop the denier BS, and start making sensible choices, investments and funding with renewables.

Honestly... how can anyone armed with this knowledge... ever cry about man made global warming being a scam to institute carbon taxes when we see the truth stark naked in front of us that the tax scam has been eating away at our wealth all along and the guilty party is fossil fuels?
edit on 5/19/2015 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Don't worry, the oil companies know we aren't going to do anything and are planning accordingly:

Royal Dutch Shell has been accused of pursuing a strategy that would lead to potentially catastrophic climate change after an internal document acknowledged a global temperature rise of 4C, twice the level considered safe for the planet.

A paper used for guiding future business planning at the Anglo-Dutch multinational assumes that carbon dioxide emissions will fail to limit temperature increases to 2C, the internationally agreed threshold to prevent widespread flooding, famine and desertification.

Instead, the New Lens Scenarios document refers to a forecast by the independent International Energy Agency (IEA) that points to a temperature rise of up to 4C in the short term, rising later to 6C.

You can find said document here (pdf).

Further, from the Guardian article:

Ben van Beurden, the Shell chief executive, has repeatedly stated that the fossil fuel giant is a responsible company that fully accepts the need to counter manmade global warming, has campaigned for a tax on greenhouse gas emissions, and is moving its focus from oil to cleaner fuels such as gas.

But an analysis of Shell’s New Lens planning document points to an acceptance that world temperatures will rise to a level that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change argues would have a severe and widespread impact. A 4C global rise by 2100 would entail a sea level rise of between 52cm and 98cm, leading to widespread coastal flooding. There would be widespread risk of animal and plant extinctions and global agriculture would be severely hit. A 4C average would also mask more severe local impacts: the Arctic and western and southern Africa could experience warming up to 10C.

Fun times ahead. I suppose the only comfort is that I'll be dead and buried before then.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Outrageous.




posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:39 PM
link   
No one wants to admit this reality.

It's sad so many others are sold on the idea that there is some 'green' agenda hell bent on stealing everyone's money when the reality is the Big Oil companies have been doing this the entire time.

Go figure...
edit on 20-5-2015 by jrod because: typo



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Jeezus H. Gretzky.

5.3 trillion means every single man, woman, and baby on this planet is helping those poor underprivileged fossil fuel companies to the tune of about $750/yr.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:16 PM
link   
The strange part is that the cost of extracting the oil is not that high. They sell the oil to the speculators which then return it to the refineries at a higher cost. This shows that the oil companies aren't making much. But all the big wheels are into the speculation and getting rich while stockholders get little. Why do they even need subsidies at all.

It's all a big time scam.




top topics



 
26
<< 1   >>

log in

join