Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Fossil Fuel Subsidies Outpace Renewables

By RenewableEnergyWorld.com Editors
July 29, 2010   |   9 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
The $43-46bn figure stands in stark contrast to the $557bn spent on subsidizing fossil fuels in 2008, as estimated by the International Energy Agency last month.
9 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 9
July 29, 2010
How does the subsidy per unit of energy generated compare between renewable and fossil fuels?
Comment
2 of 9
July 29, 2010
Good that somebody has finally taken the time to estimate subsidies to renewable energy, but to put those numbers against the IEA estimates is to compare apples with oranges. First of all, the subsidies to renewables are mainly to enable PRODUCERS to compete. The $557 billion in subsidies estimated by the IEA are not those going to producers (though some may be required in addition), but those benefitting CONSUMERS through lower prices — e.g., through forcing domestic producers of natural gas to sell their fuel to domestic consumers at a lower price, rather than exporting the fuel and obtaining a higher price.

Second, when comparing subsidies, it is misleading to list only absolute amounts. Very often, the amounts per unit of energy delivered vary considerably. For example, in the United States, the tax breaks favoring oil and gas producers are a fraction (per gallon) of those going to biofuel producers. That there are any tax breaks for fossil-fuel producers is problematical, but to discuss them without comparing them in energy terms is to feed the illusion that shifting those subsidies alone will be enough to give renewable energy a huge boost.
Comment
3 of 9
July 30, 2010
Give even half of the OIL subsidies to RE PV and Thermal installations and see how fast we catapult into a new era and Job creations....Don't believe the lies we the people have been fed for the past 20 years....
Comment
4 of 9
August 4, 2010
Ron---in 150 years of "producing" oil, no one has ever produced one single drop of oil, all we have ever done is deplete existing reserves.

When existing reserves are gone, sometime in the next 20 to 30 years, it's gone.

We'd better have something else ready to fall back on. The gas tank is almost down to empty----and it is still a LONG walk to the nearest filling station.
No image available
Comment
5 of 9
Anonymous
August 5, 2010
Ron's comment #2 is on target. The IEA figure is the value of CONSUMPTION subsidies and the world leader in 2008 was Iran at over $100 Billion. The US and the countries of the EU were not even on the list. Most of the consumption subsidies are from OPEC nations keeping the price of gasoline artificially low to satisfy potentially restive internal populations. If these funds were cut OPEC nations would have more oil to export, but they would not be funding solar, wind, and similar projects with the "savings". The study provides no estimate whatever of the subsides by industrial nations for fossil fuel production, exploration, and the like, which might properly be compared to subsidies for renewables (there values are much lower than the consumptions subsidies).

The estimates for renewable subsidies have similarly large errors. In the US, for instance, renewables receive large support from charges applied to electricity rate payers (as opposed to funds from the Federal treasury) which are not included in these totals. Also, the value of RPS requirements and other set asides are never included in estimates of the value of subsidies to renewables.

Renewable technologies benefit greatly from the subsidy policies that are now in place; if every subsidy was to be rescinded the fossil fuel industry would shrug it off with ease whereas many renewable energy companies would promptly vanish. The subsidy envy game is just a great distraction and none of the players make any great effort at producing reliable estimates....
Steven
Comment
6 of 9
August 6, 2010
Adjusting subsidies is not the right approach. Placing a $5 per barrel import duty on imported oil and oil derived products, and a $5 per ton production tax on each ton of coal extracted from the mine would launch American alternative energy ingenuity and innovation and save our treasury from insolvency.

Les Blevins
Advanced Alternative Energy
http://aaecorp.com/ceo.html .
Comment
7 of 9
August 6, 2010
Make it more like $50.
Comment
8 of 9
August 12, 2010
Thanks for the supportive comments, Steven. I would only quibble with your last sentence:

"The subsidy envy game is just a great distraction ..."

I agree that the "envy game" is a great distraction, but I do feel that it is impossible to really understand policies without "following the money." Nothing speaks louder about governments' policy intentions than how it spends the public's money (or, through regulations, forces the public to spend its own money).


"... and none of the players make any great effort at producing reliable estimates."

That is generally true of the protagonists, but there are independent organizations out there that are trying to develop more complete and comparable data on subsidies to energy. One is the Global Subsidies Initiative (www.globalsubsidies.org). Having concentrated in 2006-09 on estimating subsidies to biofuels in various countries, it has lately turned its attention to look at the much more challenging task of estimating subsidies to fossil fuels.

As for the suggestion by Les Blevins to impose a $5 per barrel import duty on imported oil (and especially Fred Linn's upping the ante to $50/barrel), there are real problems with that. As I have argued on these pages before, the USA has not bound -- i.e., committed an upper limit -- its import tariffs on crude oil at the WTO (World Trade Organization). But it HAS bound its import tariffs on refined petroleum products, and at very low levels. Thus, the higher the difference between the import tariff on crude and the import tariffs on derived products, the more products will be imported relative to crude oil. In short, the net effect on overall U.S. oil use (and on revenues to the Treasury) would probably be small.

Also, one consequence of taxing imported crude oil at a higher rate than domestic crude oil would be a windfall for domestic producers of crude (yes, Fred, that is term used, even by statistics agencies). Is that what you guys advocate?
No image available
Comment
9 of 9
Anonymous
August 30, 2010
Ron,

Regarding your first point on your 29-July comment: whether we pay companies so they can charge lower rates to consumers, or whether we incentivize companies up front to produce - we're still subsidizing so that energy costs are competitive and consumers get a low(er) price. When a producer gets a subsidy, that producer can then charge competitive electricity rates on the open market. So it really doesn't matter whether you subsidize producers or consumers - they both have the effect of benefiting the relative technology.

Justin
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

REW.com Editors

View REW.com Editors's Profile
About: Renewable Energy World's network editors help deliver the most comprehensive news coverage of the renewable energy industries. Based in the U.S. and the UK, th... more »

Advertise With Us

Westinghouse Solar Second Wind Inc. Rich Hessler Solar Business Development Conergy Inc. National Solar Trainers AWS Truepower, LLC Mannvit
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters