
Canada’s fossil fuel subsidies amount to $1,650 per Canadian - reddotX
https://thenarwhal.ca/canadas-fossil-fuel-subsidies-amount-to-1650-per-canadian-its-got-to-stop/
======
Pxtl
To be clear, this is treating externalities like carbon emissions as a subsidy
- IE we should have a massive carbon tax to internalize it. Which from an
economics standpoint makes perfect sense, but is not what most readers would
consider a "subsidy" and so is a bit of a dishonest presentation.

I agree with the conclusions, but I think presenting it that way tends to only
embolden the do-nothing anti-climate-action critics.

~~~
makomk
It's a very dishonest way of framing it. The entire article makes it sound
like they're talking about actual payment to wealthy fossil fuel companies
that could be paid to actual Canadians instead and would make them $1,650 a
year better off.

~~~
kennywinker
Not exactly. Framed the way you do it doesn’t mean i’m $1650 better off, it
means government is hiding the real cost of my consumption and encouraging me
to use fossil fuels.

I’d rather bare the cost, and be able to realize the financial benefits of
reducing my carbon footprint.

------
ckastner
> _Finally, there is the $60 billion subsidy that the IMF focused on — the
> “social costs” of carbon that governments pay, instead of fuel producers._

So it's not a direct financial contribution by the government.

This viewpoint was hotly debated in another recent thread:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19905104](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19905104)

------
lr
I wonder how the IMF would classify the amount of money the USA spends on
military protection of the shipping lanes (to protect oil shipments) around
the Middle East...

------
bko
From the study cited:

> The paper updates estimates of fossil fuel subsidies, defined as fuel
> consumption times the gap between existing and efficient prices (i.e.,
> prices warranted by supply costs, environmental costs, and revenue
> considerations),

It's not necessarily a direct transfer subsidy or even lower tax rate for
certain industries. So you can take that for what its worth

------
tekstar
If you want to talk about actual dollars in tax reductions or subsidies for
fossil fuels in Canada perhaps this link would be of better use:

[https://www.iisd.org/faq/unpacking-canadas-fossil-fuel-
subsi...](https://www.iisd.org/faq/unpacking-canadas-fossil-fuel-subsidies/)

------
maerF0x0
Interestingly there has been proposals to build Nuclear to deal with SAGD
drilling in the north. I've heard (no specific source) that 1 barrel is used
in extraction for every 3 produced. Electricity could enter the grid and the
waste heat/steam could assist Tar sand extraction and refinement processes.

But environmentalists protest Nuclear too.

~~~
rapind
Nuclear has a PR problem just like airplanes because of how high profile the
failures are (and to be honest, most nuclear plants are using 1960s tech).
People are often irrational, like worrying about their flight while _driving_
to the airport.

TerraPower is pretty interesting... but political setbacks.
[https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a25728221/te...](https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a25728221/terrapower-
china-bill-gates-trump/)

~~~
maerF0x0
These guys are more interesting to me, but it's not really my area of
expertise:

[https://flibe-energy.com/news/](https://flibe-energy.com/news/)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BybPPIMuQQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BybPPIMuQQ)

------
baldajan
The estimate is from 2015 - Trudeau got into Power in Nov. 2015...

~~~
Pxtl
At its planned maximum, the carbon tax on Canadians will be $50/tonne. Canada
emits 20 tonnes per capita per year, Assuming a naive calculation, that's
$1000 per Canadian. So under that model, half the Canadian subsidy will be
gone by 2023.

However, this simplification I'm ignores that, to protect businesses Canada
has implemented output-based allocations, where the first n-tonnes per unit
product of a large business are exempted, meaning that the cleanest and
greenest businesses within an industry pay _no_ carbon tax because they're
below their output allocation. That prevents them from getting stomped by
competitors without carbon pricing, but means a tremendous amount of GHGs in
Canada will be going untaxed.

Yeah, we need to get $100 per tonne ASAP, and start forming coalitions with
other countries so that we can use tariffs instead of output-based allocations
to protect carbon taxed businesses from untaxed competitors.

~~~
asokoloski
This is why I think H.R. 763 (in the US) is a well-designed bill. It taxes
everything, and has a built-in tariff to serve as incentive to other countries
to implement similar carbon taxes. I hope it passes. I believe it starts out
at $15 per ton, then goes up by $10 per ton each year, with adjustments based
on whether we're falling short of our greenhouse gas reduction goals, or
greatly exceeding them.

~~~
Pxtl
For reference, Canada's is $20CAD/tonne currently, going up $10/year up to a
cap of 50. So the US $15 is about the same to start, but ramping up a bit
faster when you figure exchange rate.

------
crankylinuxuser
Again, it's socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.

