The opportunity costs of corporate welfare (subsidies)

[Skill and Chance]

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.  

1.Are you denying that climate change/global warming causes a detriment to standards of living or global development?

2.What makes that silly? The technology largely already exists to replace probably around 80% of fossil fuels already with only upfront costs being higher than continuing with the present technologies, it's simply a matter of upfront costs and scalability.

https://theconversation.com/100-renewable-by-2050-the-technology-already-exists-to-make-it-happen-82925

One can believe that climate change is happening and that fossil fuel burning causes most of it without believing that it makes sense to spend any meaningful amount of money trying to mitigate it, or that there is any meaningful role for the government in mitigating it.  Even if it was best handled by the government, would we be able to predict which government policies would achieve the best results in advance?  The US had the greatest CO2 emissions reductions in the industrialized world during the 2010's, all while the government's legal/regulatory position was basically "keep doing whatever you want."

[Skill and Chance]

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.  

1.Are you denying that climate change/global warming causes a detriment to standards of living or global development?

2.What makes that silly? The technology largely already exists to replace probably around 80% of fossil fuels already with only upfront costs being higher than continuing with the present technologies, it's simply a matter of upfront costs and scalability.

https://theconversation.com/100-renewable-by-2050-the-technology-already-exists-to-make-it-happen-82925

One can believe that climate change is happening and that fossil fuel burning causes most of it without believing that it makes sense to spend any meaningful amount of money trying to mitigate it, or that there is any meaningful role for the government in mitigating it.  Even if it was best handled by the government, would we be able to predict which government policies would achieve the best results in advance?  The US had the greatest CO2 emissions reductions in the industrialized world during the 2010's, all while the government's legal/regulatory position was basically "keep doing whatever you want."

More fossil fuel sector lies.

1.To the degree that the United States had the 'greatest C02 emissions reductins in the industrialized world during the 2010s, it's largely because Europe had a head start in reducing emissions in the 2000s.

2.Much of this was due to the reduction of coal usage in the United States which was largely driven by California and some of the other 'blue states.'

"Indeed, state policies play an important role, and help explain why some states are lagging behind while others have substantially reduced their emissions. States participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), for example, are obligated to cap CO2 emissions from the power sector at 91 million tons annually, and then achieve a 10 percent reduction in these emissions by 2020. Since the implementation of RGGI, CO2 emissions from the power sector in participating states have decreased by more than 30 percent from baseline levels—though not all of that decrease can be attributed to the RGGI."
https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/u.s.-leads-in-greenhouse-gas-reductions-but-some-states-are-falling-behind

3.Some of the U.S (and European) reduction is a result of essentially offshoring C02 production in manufacturing to China.

Do you actually believe these lies you posted?

Regardless of how legit the recent US drop in emissions was or wasn't, I do not currently believe in any government restrictions on CO2 emissions.  I believe climate change is real but not (yet) worth intentionally slowing down present day economic activity anywhere in the world.  Those negatively impacted can be compensated, seawalls can be built, migrants taken in, etc.

[Skill and Chance]

Regardless of how legit the recent US drop in emissions was or wasn't, I do not currently believe in any government restrictions on CO2 emissions.  I believe climate change is real but not (yet) worth intentionally slowing down present day economic activity anywhere in the world.  Those negatively impacted can be compensated, seawalls can be built, migrants taken in, etc.

In a democratic country you have the right to that opinion and to vote accordingly, as other people have the right to believe otherwise and to vote accordingly. However, you should be aware of the actual facts and not the fossil fuel sector lies. The costs of climate change are already enormous and are going to get larger especially without C02 abatement.

For instance: Climate change means that, in many parts of the world, the way we farm is no longer working.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3ct38n9

The mitigation you refer to is not only extremely expensive but climate change is already slowing down economic activity in much of the world (look at Pakistan and China right now) or is already raising prodution costs.

In regards to migrants, that's a joke. The U.S couldn't even take in 40,000 migrants from Syria and Europe was little better. There is no way right wingers in the U.S or Europe will accept millions of climate change refugees.

Have you considered that intentionally slowing economic growth may increase the risk that we are still dependent on oil and gas in 100 years and the really bad non-linear climate change impacts start hitting us?  In the present day, restricting oil production in free countries doesn't mean it goes away, because the technology isn't there yet to replace it.  It just shifts to authoritarian countries that can then extort us and our allies.  This is why you need as much of an economic surplus as possible in the free countries to speed the experimentation and technological development along.  BTW I do strongly support clean energy R&D subsidies for this reason.