The opportunity costs of corporate welfare (subsidies)

[Del Tachi]

Every year the global fossil fuel industry is subsidised by governments to the tune of US$5.9 trillion, according to the International Monetary Fund.

No, the IMF's report is that $5.9T represents the total economic and social cost of fossil fuel.  The only way you get a number so high is by counting global warming, local pollution, traffic congestion and road accidents as the "implicit" social costs of fossil fuels.  Including traffic congestion and road accidents as an "opportunity cost" here is quite questionable, since electric vehicles also contribute to congestion and road deaths.   

Explicit government subsidies for fossil fuels are less than $500 billion per year (and the overwhelming majority of that is by governments in the Middle East + Russia, not the U.S.) 

[Del Tachi]

Every year the global fossil fuel industry is subsidised by governments to the tune of US$5.9 trillion, according to the International Monetary Fund.

No, the IMF's report is that $5.9T represents the total economic and social cost of fossil fuel.  The only way you get a number so high is by counting global warming, local pollution, traffic congestion and road accidents as the "implicit" social costs of fossil fuels.  Including traffic congestion and road accidents as an "opportunity cost" here is quite questionable, since electric vehicles also contribute to congestion and road deaths.   

Explicit government subsidies for fossil fuels are less than $500 billion per year (and the overwhelming majority of that is by governments in the Middle East + Russia, not the U.S.) 

That's what I said:
Most of the 'corporate welfare' to the fossil fuel industrry, was in the form of not charging the industry for their negative externalities, rather than in any direct subsidies.

Do we make other industries pay for their negative externalities?  is it too politically inconveninet to account for the negative externalities of EVs?   

[Del Tachi]

Every year the global fossil fuel industry is subsidised by governments to the tune of US$5.9 trillion, according to the International Monetary Fund.

No, the IMF's report is that $5.9T represents the total economic and social cost of fossil fuel.  The only way you get a number so high is by counting global warming, local pollution, traffic congestion and road accidents as the "implicit" social costs of fossil fuels.  Including traffic congestion and road accidents as an "opportunity cost" here is quite questionable, since electric vehicles also contribute to congestion and road deaths.   

Explicit government subsidies for fossil fuels are less than $500 billion per year (and the overwhelming majority of that is by governments in the Middle East + Russia, not the U.S.) 

That's what I said:
Most of the 'corporate welfare' to the fossil fuel industrry, was in the form of not charging the industry for their negative externalities, rather than in any direct subsidies.

Do we make other industries pay for their negative externalities?  is it too politically inconveninet to account for the negative externalities of EVs?   

Well, if you are calling for greater government regulations as well, sure we have that. There are laws that mandate that EVs make noise so that they can be heard because they are otherwise completely silent which is a safety hazard.

Otherwise, all I can see you doing is some sort of silly game of false equivalence. EVs produce nowhere near the amount of negative externalities as the fossil fuel sector does.

My point is that the IMF report is itself a "silly game" written to arm climate activists with a fantastic talking point, not anything approaching real or robust analysis. 

[Del Tachi]

Every year the global fossil fuel industry is subsidised by governments to the tune of US$5.9 trillion, according to the International Monetary Fund.

No, the IMF's report is that $5.9T represents the total economic and social cost of fossil fuel.  The only way you get a number so high is by counting global warming, local pollution, traffic congestion and road accidents as the "implicit" social costs of fossil fuels.  Including traffic congestion and road accidents as an "opportunity cost" here is quite questionable, since electric vehicles also contribute to congestion and road deaths.   

Explicit government subsidies for fossil fuels are less than $500 billion per year (and the overwhelming majority of that is by governments in the Middle East + Russia, not the U.S.) 

That's what I said:
Most of the 'corporate welfare' to the fossil fuel industrry, was in the form of not charging the industry for their negative externalities, rather than in any direct subsidies.

Do we make other industries pay for their negative externalities?  is it too politically inconveninet to account for the negative externalities of EVs?   

Well, if you are calling for greater government regulations as well, sure we have that. There are laws that mandate that EVs make noise so that they can be heard because they are otherwise completely silent which is a safety hazard.

Otherwise, all I can see you doing is some sort of silly game of false equivalence. EVs produce nowhere near the amount of negative externalities as the fossil fuel sector does.

My point is that the IMF report is itself a "silly game" written to arm climate activists with a fantastic talking point, not anything approaching real or robust analysis. 

Are you denying the reality that fossil fuels are by far the largest contributor of GHGs which are driving climate change/global warming? Because, if you are, nothing could be sillier than that.

Are you implying that fossil fuels can be completely phased out in only a few decades without any detriment to standards of living or global development?  Because, if you are, nothing could be sillier than that.