Q http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...ons-by-a-fifth-imf-study-20150519-gh4xyy.html The world subsidises energy consumption to the tune of more than $200,000 per second, with about 60 per cent of that going to support coal, according to researchers at the International Monetary Fund. In a paper published by the IMF, the authors found that energy subsidies are much more than previously estimated. These will rise to $US5.3 trillion ($6.6 trillion) in 2015, or about 6.5 per cent of total global output. For some developing nations, such as in the former Soviet Union and Pakistan, the subsidies approach 18 per cent of GDP. Coal-fired power plant in China. Coal-fired power plant in China. Photo: Sanghee Liu About 80 per cent of the subsidies are the result of environmental damage from burning fossil fuels, with about one-quarter of that portion attributed to climate change impacts, the four IMF researchers led by David Coady said. Removing subsidies would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent, the study found, adding the issue of energy support will be high on the agenda at the Paris climate summit planned for December in France. Premature deaths related to air pollution would also be cut by more than half. "Among different energy products, coal accounts for the biggest subsidies, given its high environmental damage and because (unlike for road fuels) no country imposes meaningful excises on its consumption," the authors said. Of the total tab, coal's subsidy this year will amount to $US3.15 trillion, with the global warming cost put at $750 billion and local air pollution $2.37 trillion. The IMF researchers said efficient energy pricing was "urgently needed", noting that energy taxes "remain the most effective and practical tool" to account for the externalities of energy use. The authors also suggested that "countries should take advantage of the low international energy prices and gradually move toward efficient energy pricing". The Abbott government delivered on its promise to scrap the carbon price in July last year. Fairfax Media sought comment on the IMF study from Environment Minister Greg Hunt and Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane. Australian Greens Deputy Leader, Larissa Waters, said the scale of global fuel subsidies supporting "the dying fossil fuel industry" were staggering. "Governments could be investing that money into reducing poverty, instead of propping up big mining companies and holding up the transition to renewable energy," Senator Waters said. "In Australia, the Greens' costed policy shows getting rid of subsidies for big mining companies to buy cheap fuel would save more than $10 billion," she said. UQ
Getting energy sector executives directly into government office would help a great deal. Since they understand business you see.
So what? There's no global warming. There's nothing but a scam built on data that has been adjusted to show warming where there wasn't any. It should be no great surprise that the global warming models don't work since the data they were based on were nothing but phony adjusted numbers to begin with. They thought they could get the world to buy the scam and redistribute the rich countries wealth before people realized that the models were nothing but a scam built on phony data. They weren't prepared to have to explain why the models don't work. Now that we're eighteen years into the model's failure, they're resorting to other tactics. Like lying about a 97 percent blah, blah. Or trying to shut people up by getting them fired. Or issuing death threats from universities, like Lord Monckton received. They working on the next step right now, which is to try and get jail time for people who won't go along with the hoax. Because inside every globull warming fraudster is a tyrant trying to jump out.
Too many lawyers already, however not many of them human rights lawyers due to not making much money relatively! Further, only very minimum number of environment lawyers because not only hard to perform well, but also hard to survive for viable employment opportunities!!! Sad!!! Q http://www.law.harvard.edu/current/careers/opia/toolkit/guides/documents/full-working-draft.pdf A distinctive aspect of environmental practice is the role of science in advocacy efforts. Many would-be environmental attorneys are intimidated by the field because of the perception that it requires scientific expertise. While environmental lawyers often work alongside scientists to achieve their goals, this collaboration allows scientists to concentrate on the science and lawyers to concentrate on the law UQ
All very interesting and confirms what I've said all along. With the major polluters of the world in Russia, China, India, South America and some in Europe to a lesser extent continuing to grow and add to the problem, just how will putting a carbon tax on American industry save us? The United States is the one country making great strides towards lowering emissions, and has been for decades. So what's the leftist solution? Punish America, naturally. If, and it's a big if, man made emissions are the sole contributing factor to climate change, I would suggest taking the argument to those that are growing the problem.
The end-game is deindustrialization of the West to create a nation of dependents. Aka the Democratic/Cloward-Piven model. CO2 is at near all-time historical lows. CO2 was >10 times higher historically, and the biosphere thrived. The earth also experienced many ice ages with CO2 >10 times higher then it is today. CO2 doesn't mean jack squat.
I could also make the argument that those so called "subsidies" are for infrastructure. Isn't that the cause celebre of the moment?