“Explicit subsidies that cut fuel prices accounted for 8% of the total and tax breaks another 6%. The biggest factors were failing to make polluters pay for the deaths and poor health caused by air pollution (42%) and for the heatwaves and other impacts of global heating (29%).”
Cutting through the jargon, ‘explicit subsidies’ is what most people think of when they talk about subsidies - things like tax credits for developing oil and gas wells. And it is a tiny amount of money, globally, 8% of the $5.9 trillion cited in the article, or $11m per minute…
Somehow I never see a study about how much good abundant, low cost, energy does for the world economies and the people therein.
I suspect the reason so much is being used is that the payoff is huge.
That doesn’t say we don’t need to deal with the emissions. But those emissions come from things that make modern living in developed countries a much higher standard of living than even the wealthiest enjoyed 150 years ago.
But that’s not news that sells, is it?
It also suggests that the way to reduce the emissions is to tax them - for everyone. That will provide both the incentive to use less, and the money needed to capture the emissions.
But that touches too close to home for most people I guess. A version of NIMBY.