Why Are We Subsidizing Fossil Fuels?

Globally we are subsidizing the fossil fuel business to the tune of $5.3 trillion a year. Why do you think we're giving these companies massive tax breaks when their products put our future in jeopardy? What can we do to end it? Journalist David Wallace-Wells, author of "The Uninhabitable Earth" explains.

#ClimateFacts #YEARSproject

[dalewilliams]

Why do so many people go crazy when there is talk of subsidizing Solar, Wind, and other forms of green energy? But they think nothing is wrong with subsidizing the Fossil Fuel industries.

[anthonyburton]

The definition of addiction has to be the continued use of a substance that you know will end you. We are undoubtedly addicted to fossil fuels. We need to go to rehab without a no no no! Unfortunately a lot people who have not contributed to the problem are going to suffer 😞from our addiction and as the rich scurry away from the uninhabitable parts of the world and buy up the last habital areas with huge walls to keep out the wretched staving masses. Dystopia is here now and in our future!

[tcolley]

Wtf? ‘subsidies are there to enrich oil executives’ - That’s it? Nothing more to it? I’m looking for the answer to this question, not fact-less fear mongering

To save the planet, we need leadership which understands science - a climate change denier is NOT capable of leading us to a win! There is overwhelming evidence in the form of SCIENTIFIC proof that human activity caused and contributes to planetary warming. Union of Concerned Scientists - their facts & scientific conclusions - factually debunk non-scientific opinion about the impact of human polluting activity on the global environment and climate system. In reality, all the climate denier arguements have been debunked! As such, we have to be crazy as all hell to deny their learned findings. +97% of scientists and +99.9% of REAL climate scientists agree that the human impact is undeniable. So, after looking at the evidence, we find the Scientific Community is joined by NOAA, NASA, the U S Military, ALL USA land management Departments/Agencies, a super majority of countries and big oil(!). Everyone, except the small cadre of non-scientific polluters and monied extraction industry interests and "persuadable" (psychometric warfare victims'followers), all agree on the REAL science -> human activity is causing global warming to speed up which threatens human existence on our small planet. And, it isn't just greenhouse gas emissions from internal combustion engines doing this damage. Methane release - methane is much worse than CO2 gas when it comes to global warming - due to permafrost loss in the northern hemisphere. Loss of the Amazon ecosystem will speed up global warming too. We must take actions to stop habitat loss where carbon is fixed and oxygen is made. We are on the brink of global catastrophe. There is no way a climate change denier can lead us to a win when it comes to environmental matters. Make no mistake, and this is not just my opinion, it is the scientific FINDINGS of real scientists, failure to address global climate change immediately will result in death and destruction on a global scale.
Department of Defense | GlobalChange.gov
Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years | Climate change | The Guardian
Oil Giant Accepts Climate Consensus, Denies Responsibility for Warming - Scientific American
What oil companies knew about climate change and when: a timeline

[kyshac]

It’s subsidized because there is not affordable alternative. Also, any alternative will be an enormous costs to the population. And you can’t create the alternative without petroleum.

[darubra]

He's right that every person benefits from cheap fossil fuels and therefore the solution (though politically impossible) has to be the taxation of end-use products rather than casting blame on the companies that produce. The only way to reduce consumption is if you price in the climate cost to consumers - and Americans more than most other nations, have the ability to pay that tax. Blaming American companies will only drive production from less regulated foreign companies.

[stephenverchinski]

But what about the Democrats and Republicans Land and Water Conservation funding? First I heard of the liability issue. Another reason for pension plans to divest.

[themobileman]

I can see why this only has 80 thumbs up as of January 13, 2020.

[backtoeden]

He says, with his china sweat shop made suit, with his chemical hair and face creams, and his plastic lap top, gussling electricity, with his one of a few thousand made paper books and plastic table (THE TREES ARE DYING THE TREES ARE DYING

[ChauNguyen-tzzm]

I agree with this guy that the government has no business subsidizing oil companies. Although I commend him on his beliefs, I cannot take a journalist seriously. Spends years researching industries, why not spend years studying to become an engineer and come up with an alternate solution. Seem kinda counter productive

[ricardobastardo]

I remember the energy crisis during the Carter administration. Everyone was screaming "We have to stop our dependence on foriegn oil." NOW that we have people are screaming "We have to eliminate all fossil fuels". Do we have anything as a viable replacement? No. And what will removing the subsidies do to gasoline prices? I doubt the price would stay affordable as they are now. Would higher gasoline prices help the poorest areas? No. If they want to get rid of fossil fuels, fine. Have a viable alternative or stfu.

[jamisonnelson]

Great! you identified the problem without a solution.

[jmuld]

Subsidy is money up front like buying an electric car, I fail to see oil getting this.

[instinctualbeasts]

I wish it was as easy as "cut off the entire industry at the root." The problem is that this isn't feasible if you do some math and look at how much energy is required by our current grid. Unfortunately, renewables aren't powerful enough, and probably won't be for the foreseeable future.

[keithgibbins]

We cannot stop using fossil fuel because we need the benefits of what they produce. We are supposedly running out of resources so why leave a good resource in the ground. What we really need to do is to use these resources responsibly and insist that electricity generation is done efficiently and cleanly and removing any pollution at source. I am quite sure we have the engineers to design these power station all it need is for governments to insist that it is done.

[pvdneste]

Well, first of all there is no 'climate crises'. And the suggestion that man can change climate (one way or the other) is rather arrogant.

Then: please answer the question: What is the perfect climate on earth?

The answer: "we must stop the change of climate" is not sufficient or even viable.

If you do not know where your going, you ain't lost.