econintersect.com
       
  

FREE NEWSLETTER: Econintersect sends a nightly newsletter highlighting news events of the day, and providing a summary of new articles posted on the website. Econintersect will not sell or pass your email address to others per our privacy policy. You can cancel this subscription at any time by selecting the unsubscribing link in the footer of each email.



posted on 09 March 2017

America's 'Hidden Subsidies' For Fossil Fuels Are Worth $170 Billion A Year

from The Conversation

-- this post authored by Radek Stefanski, University of St Andrews

Donald Trump wants to restrict or even abolish the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In particular, he is proposing to dramatically limit the federal agency’s power to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, instead putting the onus on individual states to self-regulate.

Although it sounds like a dire strategy, and emissions will probably increase, tougher regulations in blue states like California or New York should mitigate the inevitable oil and gas boom in Texas and the Midwest.

Far more worrying than a scale back of the EPA are existing policies, which already subsidise fossil fuels to an alarming extent. US markets are currently so distorted in favour of the most polluting energy sources that scrapping climate regulations will do relatively little to increase emissions, compared to the damage that is already being done. Trump’s anti-EPA proposals - if they are ever implemented - will be comparable to throwing a match on a burning building.

Coal, oil, and natural gas - fossil fuels - are the key cause of climate change, yet they receive huge support from governments. I’ve developed a new method to extract the size of fossil-fuel subsidies by looking at how much these fuels are used by individual countries. By comparing actual energy use to a hypothetical amount a country “should" use in the absence of subsidies, we can extract the value of a country’s implicit subsidies.

These benefits go far beyond the obvious tax breaks for coal, oil and gas firms. We are dealing here with entire economies set up to favour fossil fuel consumption over more energy-efficient or renewable alternatives. This manifests itself in a wide variety of “hidden subsidies", ranging from cheaper loans for drilling companies to subsidised mortgages which push people to build bigger houses that use more energy.

One striking example is the exemption of roadways from property tax. In the US, almost all land pays some type of property tax - even federal forests pay states for tying up land in a particular use. The land on which roads are built, however, generally pays nothing. This results in lost revenues and encourages more driving, and more petrol burning.

Not taxed - unlike the forests. Trong Nguyen / shutterstock

Add up the value of all these benefits and what do we get? In 2010, the most recent year in my analysis, fossil fuel subsidies in the US were worth a staggering US$170 billion. That amounted to 1.8% of GDP or US$1,400 per year for the average American family.

These subsidies have been rising since 1980, the earliest year I analysed, even as people became more aware of global warming. Ironically, there was an especially sharp rise just after America signed the Kyoto protocol in 1997 - an international treaty aimed at restricting carbon emissions. While probably unrelated, this nonetheless highlights that what governments say and do are two entirely different and often opposing things.

These subsidies are already contributing to higher emissions to a far greater extent than any potential EPA deregulation. Both directly and indirectly the government offers incentives to individuals and firms to use more energy and to burn more fossil fuels than they otherwise would.

Getting rid of these policies would improve efficiency and provide a reprieve to strained government budgets, while also lowering carbon emissions. My research shows that had the US eliminated all subsidies between 1980 and 2010, its emissions would have been 11% lower than they actually were. In fact, almost the entire increase in US carbon emissions over that period came from rising fossil-fuel subsidies which encouraged more energy use.

Trump’s suggestion that he may seek to eliminate the EPA and its various regulations on vehicle or factory pollution would work like yet another subsidy. However, the effects pale in comparison to the damage already done and continuing to be done by existing subsidy programs implemented over the past 20 years under presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama.

Radek Stefanski, Lecturer in Economics, University of St Andrews

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

>>>>> Scroll down to view and make comments <<<<<<

Click here for Historical News Post Listing










Make a Comment

Econintersect wants your comments, data and opinion on the articles posted. You can also comment using Facebook directly using he comment block below.




Econintersect Contributors


search_box

Print this page or create a PDF file of this page
Print Friendly and PDF


The growing use of ad blocking software is creating a shortfall in covering our fixed expenses. Please consider a donation to Econintersect to allow continuing output of quality and balanced financial and economic news and analysis.


Take a look at what is going on inside of Econintersect.com
Main Home
Analysis Blog
Men Without Work
Slow Economic Growth Will Be Around For A Long Time
News Blog
ISIS: Income Has More Than Halved Since 2014
What We Read Today 29 March 2017
The Best Hilarious Prank Ideas For April Fools' Day
February 2017 Pending Home Sales Index Improves?
The Need For Very Low Interest Rates In An Era Of Subdued Investment Spending
America's Missing Workers Are Primarily Middle Educated
The Share Of American Women In The Labor Force Is Slipping Even As It Rises In The Rest Of The Developed World
Infographic Of The Day: Which Countries Are Going In The Right Direction
Early Headlines: Asia Stocks Mixed, Dollar, Oil Up, Gold Down, Article 50 Day, Westinghouse Files Ch. 11, Trump Wants $1B To Start Wall, Russian Protests, China's $8T Shaky Debt, And More
Thirty Plus Terror Suspects And Convicts Not A Rare Occurrence In UK
The Winners And Losers In Trump's Proposed Budget
God and America (Version 3)
Corning's Glass Brimming With Taxpayer Subsidies
Investing Blog
Investing.com Technical Summary 28 March 2017
The Dollar's Coming Impact On Markets
Opinion Blog
Free Immigration Is The Moderate, Common-Sense Position
Macron May Lead But Le Pen Remains The Big Story
Precious Metals Blog
These Gold Stocks Will Produce Much Bigger Gains Than Gold Itself
Live Markets
29Mar2017 Market Close: DOW Closes Down 42 Points, SP 500 Up At Close, Nasdaq Clearly The Winner Closing Up 0.4 Percent, Wall Street Investors Happy
Amazon Books & More






.... and keep up with economic news using our dynamic economic newspapers with the largest international coverage on the internet
Asia / Pacific
Europe
Middle East / Africa
Americas
USA Government































 navigate econintersect.com

Blogs

Analysis Blog
News Blog
Investing Blog
Opinion Blog
Precious Metals Blog
Markets Blog
Video of the Day
Weather

Newspapers

Asia / Pacific
Europe
Middle East / Africa
Americas
USA Government
     

RSS Feeds / Social Media

Combined Econintersect Feed
Google+
Facebook
Twitter
Digg

Free Newsletter

Marketplace - Books & More

Economic Forecast

Content Contribution

Contact

About

  Top Economics Site

Investing.com Contributor TalkMarkets Contributor Finance Blogs Free PageRank Checker Active Search Results Google+

This Web Page by Steven Hansen ---- Copyright 2010 - 2017 Econintersect LLC - all rights reserved