The use of fossil fuels drives climate change. Unfortunately, the path to clean sources of electricity, heat, and transport is impeded by the continued government subsidization of fossil fuels. In our recent Scorecard measuring the US against other G7 countries on progress in eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, the US ranked last, spending over $26 billion a year to prop up fossil fuels. Fossil fuel subsidies waste money and come at the expense of public health, local communities, and the climate.
The US still provides subsidies for fossil fuel exploration, mining, production, and consumption. The US subsidizes more oil and gas production than all other G7 countries combined – nearly $15 billion USD a year, compared to $2 billion for the next highest country, Japan.
Subsidies come in a variety of forms: allowing royalty payments for companies to mine coal from public lands at far below market rates, for example (costing taxpayers more than $30 billion over the last 30 years). Additionally, nearly half of discovered, yet undeveloped, US oil is dependent on subsidies. As an example, in the Williston Basin of North Dakota, 59% of oil resources are subsidy dependent. In the Permian Basin of Texas, 40% of oil resources are subsidy dependent.
The first step to eliminate subsidies is to do a full accounting of those that exist. The US completed a subsidy “peer review” in 2016. While the official US report contained gaps, it did include a list of substantial subsidies in need of reform: $1.6 billion in subsidies for expensing of intangible drilling costs, $966 million in unnecessary write-offs for depletion of oil and gas wells, a domestic manufacturing deduction of $1.0 billion, along with many other subsidies. The next step is to eliminate subsidies: which will require action through Congress. It’s time for lawmakers to phase out government support for fossil fuel production, while ensuring a just transition for workers involved in these industries.
Ideally, Congress would pursue minimization of the total costs of energy, including the costs, if any, from carbon induced global warming. In reality, currently existing global warming models are not… Read more »
Yours is an interesting concept, but I see three problems: 1) the scientific analysis involves estimates of future or hypothetical costs; 2) the rather coldblooded calculation, even if feasible, puts… Read more »
Frank: Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify. For a cost-benefit analysis, the climate models are a weak point as the scientific method was not used in the construction… Read more »
Hi Han! I actually just wrote a piece on the subsidies the oil industry receives and how it helps lock in their virtual (92% market share) monopoly. Here’s a link… Read more »
PHASE OUT FOSSIL FUEL SUBSIDIES? YES, BUT NOT THE NRDC’S WAY Today the U.S. is unique among advanced nations in its degree of internal fragmentation, polarization, and policy gridlock. And it… Read more »
It seems I answered a lot of these issues in my prior discussion comment, just posted and where I discussed Oil Change International’s analysis … I think eliminating the $20Billion… Read more »
I have prepared an exhibit – the “Gallery of Clean Energy Inventions”. Here is the current description: The Gallery of Clean Energy Inventions displays profiles of 16 Larger Generators, 29… Read more »
Energy subsidies should not be utilized to support mature industries, in mature markets with mature technologies. The annual $15 billion of taxpayer subsidies are just a tip of the iceberg… Read more »