
G20 nations triple coal power subsidies despite climate crisis - doener
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/25/g20-nations-triple-coal-power-subsidies-climate-crisis
======
eiji
Whenever I talk to (privileged) people here in the US about this, I try to
bring one point across. As a whole, people are in too much pain and stress to
have any appreciation for a climate crisis. Whatever you may think, as a
whole, people have to deal (personally and emotionally) with (sometimes
perceived) much bigger crisis than that of the climate.

As long as people live pay-check to pay-check on the brink of no health-
insurance, the brink of missing mortgage- or rent-payments and ending on the
streets, the brink of high medical bills, the brink of 15k a year preschool
expenses, the brink of retirement ... There is always a crisis stressing
people out because there is nothing but yourself to fall back on in the event
of a disaster.

And since nobody is politically (dare I say globally) willing to provide
relief for such kind of warranted fears and concerns for ones individual
future, people have to room to spend more on the perma frost, Florida homes or
an underwater New York.

~~~
Brakenshire
The thing is, a lot of the necessary changes will have no impact on ordinary
people’s lives. The UK is now up to more than 50% clean electricity for
instance, and most people are not aware it has happened. And the UK is not
even using the cheapest forms of electricity production much (hydro because it
doesn’t have the right topology, solar because of the high latitude, onshore
wind because of population density and political decisions).

Those renewable sources of electricity - solar, onshore wind and hydro - are
now the cheapest way to produce electricity full stop, even ignoring the
pollution externalities of the alternatives, and countries that have access to
those resources do not need to sacrifice anything except a bit of technocratic
hassle to get to a high level of renewable electricity.

Getting to net zero carbon in total (including heating and transportation)
would be expensive with current technology, but probably won’t be very
expensive given the technological progress which can happen over the next 30
years, if we do the basic things right, follow a reasonable pathway, and give
companies plenty of time to make investments and incremental progress. It’s
highly likely electric vehicles will be cheaper over that timeframe, for
instance.

Your point is true, and it excuses a lack of pressure from the public, but it
doesn’t excuse the media lying to their audience to gratify them. Nor
representative politicians who are meant to use their own judgement remaining
ignorant, and avoiding the boring technocratic steps necessary to help, or
even just allow, the transition to take place.

~~~
Robotbeat
Part of the problem is that many people who are passionate about battling
climate change see the "no (significant) impact on ordinary people's lives" as
a really bad thing.

I've come across this time and time again. "Electric cars/planes are not a
solution because it keeps lifestyles the same! There MUST be lifestyle change
to battle climate change."

It's baffling because it's so tone-deaf to the general public. It's as if
there's a complete lack of understanding that wide acceptance of climate
solutions is necessary for gaining the political capital to actually fight
climate change.

~~~
primroot
Maybe they are thinking about such things as
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox)
, or [https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-
physicist...](https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/) .
Or perhaps they feel the modern lifestyle is not delivering happiness. Or, to
be more specific, they may be noting as J.S. Mill did that paradoxically
technology was improving and at the same time people were working more.

~~~
Robotbeat
That's why we need tech that doesn't emit net CO2 at all, not just Priuses and
improved combustion efficiency.

The analogy would be the development of non-ozone-depleting refrigerants.
Technology which emits greenhouse gases should simply be replaced with that
which doesn't OR the greenhouse gases must be captured after-the-fact (and the
emitters must fully pay for it).

------
gingabriska
I think the bigger problem is that everyone wants certain kind of lifestyle of
which they are inspired from Instagram/youtubers

Even if there was no Instagram or YouTube, we'll still have companies bringing
American product to local market and promising better life tho this is
amplified exponentially through social media now.

But we must ask ourselves, how many people sporting millionaire lifestyle can
this earth take?

No matter where I go, every student is reading the art of hustle, rich dad
poor dad, fake it till you make it, dreaming of renting ferraris, living in
vilas and jet setting everywhere around the globe, buying whatever they want
whenever they want to do some cool thing similar to fidget spinner.

Now, as India and China are growing coming online, everyone there is also
inspired by American habits, look at the 3d printing channels, so many
channels from developing countries are copying their American counterparts and
printing so much ABS/PETG. Now this is simply an example.

It's human tendency to copy those who you think are better than you in your
limited worldview. It is justified in mind easily.

So we must ask, can this planet afford everyone to live like an American
millionaire?

Edit: Downvotes are raining on me. I am not against America or India or even
china, you can replace them with any developed - developing country pair.

I am simply saying at present, planet can't ensure same lifestyle for everyone
without destroying itself. Yes, with technological advancement and political
will, it will be possible in future, but are we forgetting the article we are
commenting on.

~~~
vikramkr
Yes if we innovate our way there. We cannot ever stop the human desire for a
better life not should we, the power of mankind lies in our ability to
innovate around d challenges. We fixed the ban population crisis with the
green revolution. New energy sources like nuclear can give everyone the
quality of life they desire and deserve. Asteroid mining can be a
revolutionary source of resources. And we don't know what humans could invent
next. But we need to support science and education to make this future happen

~~~
igor47
ah the extreme techno-optimist position.

> We cannot ever stop the human desire for a better life not should we

i think the goal is to redefine what a better life looks like. like, maybe
it's not one of increasing consumption, but one of community and connection
and ecological harmony.

~~~
snikeris
Ah, the omniscient position. If only everyone behaved like me, the world would
be a better place.

I'll continue to define what a better life looks like for myself, and I'll
continue to respect the right of others to do the same, thank you very much.

~~~
igor47
> I'll continue to define what a better life looks like for myself, and I'll
> continue to respect the right of others to do the same, thank you very much.

do you think that if everyone behaved like this, the world would be a better
place?

~~~
snikeris
Of course. How could we presume to know what's best for people we don't even
know?

------
rlpb
It's a shame this journalist doesn't seem to have investigated at all _why_
these governments have increased coal subsidies. Surely there's a reason, and
it's the reason that needs political support to tackle.

~~~
chumali
It's a combination of reasons present to different degrees depending on the
nation in question. These include:

The political fallout of allowing these industries to fail (coal production
and power generation make up a large portion of economic activity in many
rural regions, with workers in these industries having little transferable
skills.)

Strong protectionist incentives given that coal power is relatively cheap and
can enable lower costs in energy intensive industries such as steel
manufacturing.

Security of supply - having some domestic capacity is always preferable to
being totally reliant on imports.

Opportunity cost - emissions tariffs have generally been on the increase so it
makes sense to pollute whilst it's still relatively cheap.

~~~
Angostura
I can think of at least one hypothetical, which is _good_ news, related to
security of supply:

With an ever-shrinking share of the market, coal is no longer financially
sustainable - the stations are only used in times of absolute need. They are
usually off, but the government pays to keep them available.

~~~
benj111
Good point, it's relatively easy to get to 70/80/90% renewables. Its that one
week in January, where its cold, the wind isnt blowing, it's cloudy and your
nuclear reactor is down for whatever reason.

 _But_ most countries seem to be shifting to gas away from coal in the short
term, wouldn't gas generation be better for that kind of situation, ie if you
have mothballed gas and coal generation, why keep the coal around?

~~~
AstralStorm
Gas is no better than coal from climate PoV, and it is much harder to source
locally in many countries.

~~~
tialaramex
Nope. Gas is _much_ better than coal from a climate POV.

Natural gas is basically methane, CH4, when you burn it you're making CO2 and
H2O (water) and you get energy out from both these changes.

But coal is much nastier, not only is there nitrogen and sulfur in there
(which are both going to produce poisonous gases you'll need to do something
about) but the ratio of carbon to hydrogen is much worse so we produce far
more CO2 for the same amount of energy production.

Shutting coal plants and building gas plants instead makes a big difference.
Not enough of a difference to prevent catastrophic climate change, but a big
step in the right direction compared to subsidising coal.

~~~
andrekandre
yep, and not only sulfur and nitrogen but also radioactive!

[https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html](https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html)

------
pjc50
Underlying reports are linked, which is nice, and they're even CC licensed:
[https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/resource-
document...](https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/resource-
documents/12745.pdf) and [https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/resource-
document...](https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/resource-
documents/12744.pdf)

The "why" and "how" are more complex. The figures include lending as well as
direct subsidy. Both China and India have been building at a high rate.

> With regard to domestic public finance identified, India provided the
> highest amount of support identified by far, at US$10.6 billion per year
> (2016–2017 average). However, it must be noted that these findings are not
> directly comparable between countries; one reason behind such high numbers
> in India is that its banking system is dominated by government-owned banks
> which were nationalised in the 1960s and 1980s. These banks, despite being
> majority government-owned, operate predominantly as commercial entities
> rather than as banks driven by government policy

> In its National Electricity Plan, India still foresees new capacity
> additions for coal – 45.9 GW from 2017–2027 – but this is dwarfed by planned
> additions for renewable energy, with 275 GW targeted by 2027 (CEA, 2018)

~~~
HaukeHi
I made a spreadsheet here comparing comparing countries climate policies
including fossil fuel subsidies:

[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTaPmBiFIbPq...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTaPmBiFIbPqzc1KLWHDgFVESLw9Ay7TtGGoDlIeza1XPpFPi5Abv7_nl1yLsImqBQozEgbi6O1klE_/pubhtml#)

------
agentultra
_Climate apocalypse_.

We have approximately 4-5 years left to mobilize massive de-carbonation in
order to stave off the _worst_ effects of climate change [0]. It's already too
late to avoid 2C warming. Even if we stopped instantly today the feedback
loops have been in gear for years.

Small, incremental changes are not what I was hoping for.

[0] [https://www.earth.com/news/5-years-mitigate-climate-
change/](https://www.earth.com/news/5-years-mitigate-climate-change/)

~~~
tremon
I don't think we have 4-5 years left, I think we're already 10 years beyond
the point of no return. I'm not a climate scientist so my opinion bears very
little weight, but I think we lost the battle when the Siberian permafrost
started thawing.

In my view, even an instantaneous 100% reduction in carbon emissions
(including the sudden disappearance of all cattle) will not stop the northern
ice cap from disappearing completely, and the methane deposits under it will
easily follow. Because of the location, my expectation is that these emissions
will significantly alter the path of the northern jet stream, affecting the
climate all over the northern hemisphere.

But, hey, what do I know, right?

~~~
rhino369
The "thawed permafrost = permafucked" hysteria is not based on science. The
IPCC, etc. include feedback loops into their calculations.

~~~
tremon
"Not based on science", how? I have stated my observations, and have formed a
hypothesis from them. The first part of my prediction is untestable because of
a precondition we cannot meet (an instantaneous 100% reduction in carbon
emissions), but the latter part is testable.

Let's just wait 20-30 years for the permafrost to thaw, and then re-analyze
the jet stream, shall we?

------
mparramon
And then people complain when these things happen:
[https://www.dw.com/en/coal-protests-in-germany-climate-
activ...](https://www.dw.com/en/coal-protests-in-germany-climate-activists-
storm-garzweiler-mine/a-49313892)

~~~
adrianN
I wonder when this[1] stops being satire.

[1] [https://www.theonion.com/last-ditch-climate-change-report-
pr...](https://www.theonion.com/last-ditch-climate-change-report-provides-
locations-of-1835244382)

~~~
passiveincomelg
Nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

~~~
jandrese
Gotta use Nukes, they're the green bomb. No CO2 release.

------
H8crilA
For what it's worth, China is actually more CO2 efficient compared to Western
nations at similar levels of development in the past:

[https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/05/25/china-
is...](https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/05/25/china-is-
surprisingly-carbon-efficient-but-still-the-worlds-biggest-emitter)

~~~
taf2
That's good news but didn't they just finish putting more CO2 into the
atmosphere then all developed countries combined over 100 year in like the
last 10 years?

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/07/01/china-
emits-...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/07/01/china-emits-more-
carbon-dioxide-than-the-u-s-and-eu-combined/#2114269b628c)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/business/china-davos-
clim...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/business/china-davos-climate-
change.html)

~~~
andrekandre
yep, and a lot of that has to do with starting in the 2008-2009 global
economic crisis and (still continuing) stimulating their way (and arguably by
secondary effect our way) out of it by consuming huge amounts of steel and
concrete

[https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/business/worldbusiness/15...](https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/business/worldbusiness/15iht-g7.4.20200268.html)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_stimulus_prog...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_stimulus_program)

[http://www.globalcement.com/magazine/articles/1054-global-
ce...](http://www.globalcement.com/magazine/articles/1054-global-cement-
top-100-report-2017-2018)

[https://www.caixinglobal.com/2017-10-17/slowing-china-
steel-...](https://www.caixinglobal.com/2017-10-17/slowing-china-steel-
consumption-stymies-global-demand-growth-101157487.html)

[https://www.rfa.org/english/commentaries/energy_watch/chinas...](https://www.rfa.org/english/commentaries/energy_watch/chinas-
economic-stimulus-spurs-climate-costs-01072019105749.html)

[edit] formatting

------
pier25
While 150+ years of GHG emissions have put us in a terrible situation,
reducing emissions or even reaching zero emissions will not solve climate
change much like removing your foot from the accelerator would not prevent a
car crash.

The current 415ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere will break havoc for centuries to
an unknown extent. Self sustaining climatic systems have already been
triggered (Arctic ice, methane, etc) and due to climate lag the changes we are
seeing in the climate today are from the emissions from about 40 years ago.
Bad news is we have emitted more GHG in the last 40 years than the previous
150 years before that.

Finally we don't really know for sure how much warming there is today since
the cooling effects of aerosols have been difficult to calculate, and there is
some debate whether the preindustrial baseline picked by the IPCC is correct.
We could already be at 2ºC of warming today.

If anyone wants links of all that just ask.

~~~
perfunctory
I agree with most of this but I find the analogy with a car crash quite
misleading. There will be no specific point in time in the future when we will
fall off a cliff. It will just get progressively worse. What we can do is slow
the worsening down and give ourselves and future generations more time to
adapt.

~~~
pier25
There are definitely climate "cliffs". See climate tipping points for example
that could lead us into a runaway greenhouse effect.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_system)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect)

------
londons_explore
I'm actually pro making carbon emissions tariffs, and then subsidising coal.

The subsidy can be made the same size as the tariff, but reduce over time.

It also gives the coal plants a massive incentive to look for ways to increase
efficiency. If they can generate slightly more power from the same amount of
emissions, they will make lots more money.

~~~
WhompingWindows
Why would you ever give aid to the dirtiest source of electricity? Coal use
will accelerate future catastrophes and cost WAY more long-term than any
meager benefits until 2030 or whenever they are banned.

It's simply immoral to suggest coal subsidies. Renewables are much cheaper and
far better for the planet and local air pollution. Anyone who is willing to
give anything to coal at this point is selling 1000's of years of emissions
for 5-10 years of coal-worker and coal-owner subsidy. It's disgraceful coal
still gets subsidies.

------
HaukeHi
The importance of fossil fuel subsidy reform is overstated. Burning fossils
fuels causes climate change, which has costs estimated to be in the
trillions.[133] Some people refer to these negative externalities are
“subsidies for fossil fuel”[134]. Perhaps it’s fair to refer to the amount
untaxed negative externalities as ‘subsidies’, but some people might think
that these ‘trillions in subsidies’ refer to funds in government budgets to
directly lower the price of fossil fuels that could simply be cut.[135] But
direct government support and tax breaks for fossil fuels that could be cut
amounts to ‘only’ about $330 billion per year globally, according to a new
study in Nature.[136] This means that unfortunately, fossil fuel subsidy
reform will not increase the price of fossil fuels by trillions, because
negative externalities (e.g. climate change and disease) make up most of these
trillion dollar figures.

Would cutting these—still considerable—subsidies reduce emissions
substantially? The Nature study suggests that global subsidy removal would
only lead to a small, 1%–5% decrease in global CO₂ emissions. Only a small
share of this can be influenced by policy in advanced economies: There are $43
billion in subsidies, amounting to 13% of global subsidies, within Europe,
North America, and the Pacific OECD, and this number is not projected to grow
much in the future. In fact, EU member states and G7 nations have pledged to
end fossil fuel subsidies by 2020 and 2025 respectively (although they are
currently not on track to fulfill this pledge).[137] Advanced economies might
be able to use their influence to push fossil fuel subsidy reform in emerging
economies, but this would be hard because even though it would have many
benefits,[138] they are nevertheless often seen as regressive[139].

The Nature study has been criticized[140] for leaving out some subsidies, such
as capacity market payments to ensure the constant electricity supply, public
finance, and investment by state-owned fossil fuel enterprises. Others
estimate subsidies in European countries alone to be $138 billion a year.[141]
But even if we were to use these higher estimates to naively extrapolate them
to get a rough upper bound of the direct government support in all advanced
economies, then this number would probably not be much higher than the $330
billion. Thus, advocacy for subsidy reform in advanced economies is unlikely
to reduce emissions by much more than 5%. Because phasing out these minor
subsidies is theoretically equivalent to a very small tax on carbon, it will
not substantially stimulate the kind of energy innovation that could spill
over to emerging economies. Thus, the net benefits of advocacy might be lower
than other policy areas.

Reducing emissions by 5% is not insignificant and worth promoting, especially
if broad support can be garnered from both environmentalist and libertarian
camps to end support of fossil fuel subsidies. Also, any country can
unilaterally cut their fossil fuel consumption without the need for
international coordination. But because the world must lower emissions to zero
or even negative emissions soon,[142] phasing out fossil fuel subsidies can
only be a small part of the answer. It is not the silver bullet some advocates
claim.

All citations and more effective climate policies can be found at:
[https://lets-fund.org/clean-energy/#h.jf0xbaac5xn6](https://lets-
fund.org/clean-energy/#h.jf0xbaac5xn6)

------
perfunctory
Adjusting your lifestyle and behaviour in line with climate goals is not about
making a difference. It's about being a decent person. You don't throw litter
into the street even though it's a drop in the ocean. You don't bully somebody
just because everybody else does, even though it makes little difference. You
do the things you do because you are a good decent person.

If you know about climate change and you still fly, invest in fossil fuel,
consume extravagantly [edit: or anything you know has a large impact and you
could reasonably do without (no, I don't know how to define reasonable in this
context)] you are just a bad person. Sorry.

edit2: I am just saying this because I am desperate. And scared.

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
Why stop there? Are you currently using solar power? Do you use the bus
instead of walking? What's your food habits - do you eat meat? What clothes
are you currently wearing? Where do you live? How large is it? Does it need
heating or air conditioning?

You're drawing the "this makes an awful person" line at a super arbitrary
point.

~~~
perfunctory
I was expecting a reply along these lines. Just because you don't kill
yourself to eliminate all emissions doesn't mean you shouldn't try to do what
you can.

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
I'm just saying - you're a bad person. Sorry.

~~~
lordfoom
I don't know if it's your intention, but it comes across to me that you're
advocating doing nothing, which strikes me as bad.

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
I'm not - we absolutely need to do something. What I am advocating against is
drawing an arbitrary line in the sand and going "well, I don't still fly,
invest in fossil fuel, or consume extravagantly, therefore I'm fine and a good
person." Even if you do those things, you're still going to be part of the
problem.

~~~
igor47
in your opinion, what makes someone part of the solution?

