Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Are you aware of how retarded this argument truly is?
I agree, the liberal argument about "the real costs" of fossil fuel is idiotic.
It's almost as dumb as......
Al Gore telling the plebes to cut their carbon footprint while he uses more oil than a small village.
Are you aware of how retarded this argument truly is?
I agree, the liberal argument about "the real costs" of fossil fuel is idiotic.
Really? Flesh that one out, if you would. Do the costs not exist? Does the subsidy total not exist? Or does none of it matter? If the latter, why does it not matter?
Share your knowledge for us "idiots." Can't wait.
It's almost as dumb as......
Al Gore telling the plebes to cut their carbon footprint while he uses more oil than a small village.
So, Gore should live like Jose Mujica, or his message won't resonate. Got it. Sound logic.
Don't like our air!!! Don't breathe it!!! ... Brilliant stuff. The kind of analysis one has come to expect from mouth-breathing cons.
Does the subsidy total not exist?
The liberal calculations of fossil fuel subsidies are moronic.
So, Gore should live like Jose Mujica, or his message won't resonate.
"Cut your CO2, or the Earth will melt, I'll be over here, releasing more than ever"
You're onto something, his message doesn't resonate.
Does the subsidy total not exist?
The liberal calculations of fossil fuel subsidies are moronic.
You don't seem to be answering my question... At this point, I'm leaning towards you not knowing what you're talking about.
What part of their subsidy total isn't legit, or is misguided? Work harder. Right now, you seem extremely lazy, and that's usually because a person is just spewing at the mouth with no actual insight whatsoever.
So, Gore should live like Jose Mujica, or his message won't resonate.
"Cut your CO2, or the Earth will melt, I'll be over here, releasing more than ever"
You're onto something, his message doesn't resonate.
Again, not answering my question. He should live in a shack or shut his mouth? Does his lifestyle overshadow millions of homes that don't live that way?
Does the subsidy total not exist?
The liberal calculations of fossil fuel subsidies are moronic.
You don't seem to be answering my question... At this point, I'm leaning towards you not knowing what you're talking about.
What part of their subsidy total isn't legit, or is misguided? Work harder. Right now, you seem extremely lazy, and that's usually because a person is just spewing at the mouth with no actual insight whatsoever.
So, Gore should live like Jose Mujica, or his message won't resonate.
"Cut your CO2, or the Earth will melt, I'll be over here, releasing more than ever"
You're onto something, his message doesn't resonate.
Again, not answering my question. He should live in a shack or shut his mouth? Does his lifestyle overshadow millions of homes that don't live that way?
What part of their subsidy total isn't legit, or is misguided?
Little is legit. Most is misguided.
Work harder. Right now, you seem extremely lazy,
Make yourself useful.
Post the subsidy numbers you feel are most correct, and I'll point out the errors.
He should live in a shack or shut his mouth?
He wants the rest of us to live in shacks, so yes.
Does his lifestyle overshadow
Yes, his lifestyle overshadows his lifestyle recommendations for the little people.
What part of their subsidy total isn't legit, or is misguided?
Little is legit. Most is misguided.
Work harder. Right now, you seem extremely lazy,
Make yourself useful.
Post the subsidy numbers you feel are most correct, and I'll point out the errors.
It's right there in the story you obviously didn't read, troll. The study was conducted by the IMF, hardly a "liberal" bastion. Their total is an underestimate, if anything, as the IMF official admitted.
In short, a lot of the total has to do with pollution that your heroes refuse to clean up, so the government has to. Conservative douche bags have a long and tortuous history of pretending pollution is an "externality" that is always "someone else's problem."
He should live in a shack or shut his mouth?
He wants the rest of us to live in shacks, so yes.
Can we apply the same retarded logic to con lawmakers who vote against supporting the troops, or con zealots who want the Pope to shut up? Oh wait, we understand: It's different when your side preaches one thing, but does another. Oh so very different.
Does his lifestyle overshadow
Yes, his lifestyle overshadows his lifestyle recommendations for the little people.
Good job avoiding the crux of my very basic question re: proportion and degree; factors you guys willfully obfuscate on every topic you try to play the "liberals do it, too" card on. You get the point I'm trying to make. You're just too much of a RW zealot to acknowledge it honestly.
Troll's gonna troll. It's what you guys do.
The study was conducted by the IMF, hardly a "liberal" bastion.
Hardly a conservative bastion.
In short, a lot of the total has to do with pollution that your heroes refuse to clean up
No pollution caused by burning dried cow dung.
These include the harm caused to local populations by air pollution as well as to people across the globe affected by the floods, droughts and storms being driven by climate change.
I heard climate change cost a gazillion dollars last year.
The IMF estimate of $5.3tn in fossil fuel subsidies represents 6.5% of global GDP. Just over half the figure is the money governments are forced to spend treating the victims of air pollution and the income lost because of ill health and premature deaths.
Nations with higher energy consumption, from fossil fuels, have healthier, longer living populations.
The costs resulting from the climate change driven by fossil fuel emissions account for subsidies of $1.27tn a year, about a quarter, of the IMF’s total. The IMF calculated this cost using an official US government estimate of $42 a tonne of CO2 (in 2015 dollars),
Garbage in, garbage out.
The direct subsidising of fuel for consumers, by government discounts on diesel and other fuels, account for just 6% of the IMF’s total.
Yeah, governments should stop doing that.
Other local factors, such as reduced sales taxes on fossil fuels and the cost of traffic congestion and accidents, make up the rest. The IMF says traffic costs are included because increased fuel prices would be the most direct way to reduce them.
The cost of congestion and accidents is a subsidy for fossil fuels? That's hilarious!
When we're stuck in traffic with electric vehicles, can we call that a subsidy for "green energy"? LOL!
If you find a list of "fossil fuel subsidies" that isn't so moronic, feel free to post it.
I'll be happy to pick that apart as well.
Oh, I see. I'm dealing with a mouth-breathing con who can't actually debate, just spew irrelevancies. OK, I'll wrap this up then.
The study was conducted by the IMF, hardly a "liberal" bastion.
Hardly a conservative bastion.
Please. They engage in dictatorial capitalism, far more aligned with conservative principles. Hold out as desperately as you require, but you're not fooling anyone. They represent the aristocracy. Deal with it.
There is NOTHING liberal about what financial entities like the IMF provide. You fraud.
In short, a lot of the total has to do with pollution that your heroes refuse to clean up
No pollution caused by burning dried cow dung.
Nice punt. No, this rather specifically points to fossil fuel pollution. Try and focus.
These include the harm caused to local populations by air pollution as well as to people across the globe affected by the floods, droughts and storms being driven by climate change.
I heard climate change cost a gazillion dollars last year.
I see what you're trying to do here. OK, cite it. If you can't, we'll rest assured you're talking out of your ass again.
The IMF estimate of $5.3tn in fossil fuel subsidies represents 6.5% of global GDP. Just over half the figure is the money governments are forced to spend treating the victims of air pollution and the income lost because of ill health and premature deaths.
Nations with higher energy consumption, from fossil fuels, have healthier, longer living populations.
Well, that depends upon their economic status and where they live in relation to the pollution fallout, now doesn't it? Idiot. There's a reason the Exxon CEO refused to allow fracking in his neighborhood.
The costs resulting from the climate change driven by fossil fuel emissions account for subsidies of $1.27tn a year, about a quarter, of the IMF’s total. The IMF calculated this cost using an official US government estimate of $42 a tonne of CO2 (in 2015 dollars),
Garbage in, garbage out.
Another non answer that doesn't remotely address the point you're challenged with. You may as well just wave a white flag, as its clear the intricate details of this argument elude you.
The direct subsidising of fuel for consumers, by government discounts on diesel and other fuels, account for just 6% of the IMF’s total.
Yeah, governments should stop doing that.
Agreed. At which point we'd all see a truer cost of WTI, back up around levels where the average U.S. consumer or small business couldn't afford it anymore. We all remember how that worked out for growth.
Other local factors, such as reduced sales taxes on fossil fuels and the cost of traffic congestion and accidents, make up the rest. The IMF says traffic costs are included because increased fuel prices would be the most direct way to reduce them.
The cost of congestion and accidents is a subsidy for fossil fuels? That's hilarious!
When we're stuck in traffic with electric vehicles, can we call that a subsidy for "green energy"? LOL!
Oh, you are a truly "Deep" thinker, aren't you? Pretty sure what they're saying there is that not subsidizing transportation fuels will result in less drivers on the road. ... Roads which are made and maintained with more fossil fuels, by the way.
If you find a list of "fossil fuel subsidies" that isn't so moronic, feel free to post it.
I'll be happy to pick that apart as well.
But then, you didn't really pick anything apart. You just spewed a bunch of dumb, irrelevant talking points you heard on Fox News that sound like they MIGHT have something to do with what's being discussed... but don't. You sound like just another couch-bound Sarah Palin fan, routinely voting against your own self-interest, and not smart enough to understand why. "Drill, baby, Drill!!"
Undoubtedly, you'll fire back with another round of retarded, miss-the-point snark like you trolls always do. You must sate your desperate need to get the last word in, even though you don't understand what's being discussed. I'll let you have that, while I continue my search for a conservative who's actually informed on the issues, and what they mean for complex societies. You ain't it.
Fossil fuels subsidised by $10m every minute, says IMF
‘Shocking’ revelation finds $5.3tn subsidy estimate for 2015 is greater than the total health spending of all the world’s governments
Fossil fuel companies are benefitting from global subsidies of $5.3tn (£3.4tn) a year, equivalent to $10m a minute every day, according to a startling new estimate by the International Monetary Fund.
The IMF calls the revelation “shocking” and says the figure is an “extremely robust” estimate of the true cost of fossil fuels. The $5.3tn subsidy estimated for 2015 is greater than the total health spending of all the world’s governments.
The vast sum is largely due to polluters not paying the costs imposed on governments by the burning of coal, oil and gas. These include the harm caused to local populations by air pollution as well as to people across the globe affected by the floods, droughts and storms being driven by climate change.
Get rid of this and I'll think about doing the same for renewables!
