Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
I am NOT advocating "stiffing the fossil fuel industry."  I wanted to get an idea of the scale of what we spend on fuel and see what that might mean in advancing the idea of a renewables transition.  An orderly transition would be much more preferable than a guillotine cut but, if we are to transition to a renewably powered future, then the fossil fuel industry, by and large, is going to shrink dramatically if not completely vanish.

One way to create the orderly transition would be to examine and reduce wherever possible the subsidies now going to fossil foolishness.  It won't happen, of course, because the political will is not there yet but somebody with expertise in the field should make the effort and begin imagining what that might be.

The fact of the matter is that every wind turbine and solar panel is reducing the market share of fossil foolishness (and nuclear power).  I'd also like to see any discussion of carbon pricing include the economic reality of today's subsidies to fossil fools but that is probably asking for too much.

Solar IS Civil Defense

by gmoke on Sun Jul 7th, 2019 at 12:54:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I never thought YOU were. I would just prefer to get started building renewable energy ASAP and think this can best be accomplished by just doing that and leaving fossil fuel subsidies alone until we have enough  renewabel energy to be self sufficient without fossil fuel.

Economically, the benefit of having no fuel cost is ALREADY driving fossil fuel out of the market. But there are frictions, like the time required to convert transportation to renewable energy, the time to convert industrial processes to renewable energy and the time to develop sufficient recycling technology so as not to exceed resource limitations.

Learning to prosper in a world with a declining population is also a necessity - unless we wish our children and grandchildren to be part of a giant involuntary population reduction.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Jul 7th, 2019 at 03:09:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
to be self sufficient without fossil fuel

is not the goal implied by the proposition offered in this article or indeed the supposition, GREEN NEW DEAL. Certainly self sufficiency appears to be an inappropriate attitude for integral regulation of international investment and capital formation. Please, elaborate.

"Leaving fossil fuel subsidies alone" is the null hypothesis of government policy for a large number of nation-states, irrespective of the Paris accord. Adding discriminatory incentives (commercial or transfer payments) to fossil fuel preference policy has not produced statistically significant change in rates of adoption of alternative fuel industries (upstream and downstream) over the prior 40 years. Controversy in Germany over coal, nuclear decomission, solar FITs, LNG  FDI is one highly visible case study on point. USA commitment to any is simply incoherent and disregarded.

Setting aside tendency for misplaced precision in industrial surveys and research bias manifest in select regional output surveillance and crazy IMF USD debt marketing to sovereign governments to fund fossil fuel subsidies, over all, PPM has increased to 413.

I infer, "leaving fossil fuel subsidies alone" neither impedes production and consumption nor facilitates alternative fuel production and consumption. I conclude: fossil fuel subsidy is a barrier to goal attainment.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Sun Jul 7th, 2019 at 05:17:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Top Diaries

Ulster says NO!

by Frank Schnittger - Oct 17

Trump's Presidency Transfixed

by ARGeezer - Oct 17

Spain is not a democracy

by IdiotSavant - Oct 14

Does anyone care?

by Frank Schnittger - Oct 10

Occasional Series