TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Richest nations fail to agree on deadline to phase out fossil fuel subsidies

82 pointsby ramonvillasantealmost 9 years ago

8 comments

Lazarealmost 9 years ago
The headline is very misleading.<p>1. This was a meeting of the G20; it&#x27;s LARGE nations, not RICH nations.<p>2. Poor nations are responsible for the overwhelming majority of fossil fuel subsidies. The worst offenders are China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, and Mexico. Someone else noted that Saudi Arabia was a major blocker of an agreement to cut subsidies, and someone asked why &quot;we&quot; (ie, the US&#x2F;Europe) don&#x27;t just ignore them and go ahead and cut subsidies ourselves. The answer is because Saudi Arabia is the one doing the subsidising; only they can cut their own subsidies.<p>3. What subsidies rich countries do provide tend to be highly contentious, and depending on how you measure them are either small or non-existent. A poor country might sell petrol and heating oil for a fraction of its cost of production, which is an obvious subsidy to the oil and gas industry. For, eg, the US, most if its &quot;subsidy&quot; is stuff like IRS rules that say that a petroleum company can count most of a fine for an oil spill as a business expense. Should a fine be classified as a business expense? If you think it shouldn&#x27;t be, the fact that the IRS (partially) disagrees represents a small subsidy. Then again, a lot of fines do get counted as expenses, and the US is hardly alone in having rules like that. Similarly, a lot of coal is mined in the Powder Basin Region, which is not designated as a coal producing region. Under US law, land in coal producing regions is subject to slightly higher leases than land outside them, which means the coal companies who lease land in the Powder Basin are paying slightly less than they &quot;should&quot; be paying. Or alternatively, coal companies who lease land in other coal regions are paying slightly more. Or maybe coal companies should pay whatever the law specifies; it&#x27;s not like there&#x27;s any global standard on what the right cost should for leasing coal reserves. But if you think that the US has magically set the perfect price for coal producing regions, AND that the Powder Basin Region should totally be designated a coal producing region, then sure, that&#x27;s a small subsidy for the companies who lease land in the Powder Basin. And so on.<p>In short, better headline: Poor oil producers say &quot;no thanks&quot; to suggestions from rich countries that they should cut their subsidies for domestic consumption.
tompalmost 9 years ago
&gt; Saudi Arabia has been the major blocker of a deal at the G-20<p>Well, who would have thought... But seriously, why do we (or rather, G-19) even listen to them? Why can&#x27;t we just cut the subsidies ourselves, have investments in renewables grow and watch SA slowly drown it its oil?
评论 #12027181 未加载
评论 #12027163 未加载
评论 #12027202 未加载
评论 #12028056 未加载
评论 #12027166 未加载
ramonvillasantealmost 9 years ago
It’s too big markets and subsidies<p>&quot;Citing data from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Musk lamented he’s “competing against something that has a $6 trillion per year subsidy,” and that the low gas prices that subsidies create are “weakening the economic-forcing function to sustainable transport and clean energy in general.” Source: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;ecowatch.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;05&#x2F;05&#x2F;elon-musk-fossil-fuels&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;ecowatch.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;05&#x2F;05&#x2F;elon-musk-fossil-fuels&#x2F;</a><p>At the global scale we have a big mistake since decades. Fixing it is going to be the most difficult challenge ever to date. But I’m optimistic in the accelerated speed of change in tech-science, market, prices, policies and social awareness even with the fact the we are now far from the right path to achieve it.<p>We need a very holistic transtion to save people and planet from climate change and pollution dramatic impacts. Including re educating society towards sustainability. This includes helping to transform skills of people and professionals from traditional unsustainable industries and societies to sustainable ones. This requires action from private, public and nonprofit sectors and people, to cope with the speed of the change needed according to majoritarian scientific consensus.
marcusgarveyalmost 9 years ago
&gt;A promise to cut subsidies was first made at a G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh in 2009, but since then very little progress has been made<p>So seven years and counting.<p>&gt;[U.S. Secretary of Energy] Moniz said the United States would eventually need legislative action in Congress to reach longer-term emissions goals, but he said that he believed public pressure for Congress to act would mount as sea levels rise and “Mother Nature’s voice” continues to get louder.<p>Translation: Nothing will be done until things take an unambiguously disastrous turn -- if then. How reassuring.
评论 #12027157 未加载
toomuchtodoalmost 9 years ago
What can be done to apply pressure on these countries to speed up the phase out of fossil fuel subsidies? Replace representatives in their respective legislative branches?
评论 #12027997 未加载
评论 #12028045 未加载
评论 #12027134 未加载
afarrellalmost 9 years ago
Given the belief that we need to leave fossil fuels in the ground and close mining operations, shouldn&#x27;t that change the left&#x27;s opinion of Margret Thatcher? (Or at least of the mine closures)
评论 #12027162 未加载
roflchoppaalmost 9 years ago
It&#x27;s going to be interesting to see the effects on manufacturing, esp with the bits and pieces of things that are made with oil.
Pica_soOalmost 9 years ago
Free market willz it!