phys.org/ 24/3/2021 Fossil fuel companies get $62B a year in implicit subsidies, economist reports by Bob Yirka
” … As Kotchen notes, fossil fuel providers in the U.S. are not made to pay for the costs associated with use of their products. Burning oil and coal, he notes, produces air pollution, which, in addition to contributing to global warming, also adversely impacts the health of people breathing polluted air. Such products also lead to road damage and congestion due to travel delays. He notes that all of the side-effects of using fossil fuels have costs. Currently, such costs are borne by taxpayers, not the companies that produce the product. Because the fossil fuel companies do not have to pay such costs, Kotchen refers to them as implicit subsidies. In this new effort, he has added up all of the associated costs from fossil fuel use to find out just how much these implicit subsidies come to each year.
Using data for the years 2010 to 2018, Kotchen found that they add up to approximately $62 billion on average for each year. He notes also that there are very few large fossil fuel companies providing their products to buyers in the U.S., which means that each of them gets a very large piece of the pie. He found, for example, that Peabody Energy Corp received approximately $1.56 billion of the pie, while Arch Resources received just over $1 billion. He also found that producers of natural gas were also getting implicit subsidies—EQT Corp, for example, received approximately $696 each year, while Exxon Mobil received approximately $688 million. He noted that coal producers were receiving the most benefit from implicit subsidies. …”
academia.edu 2013 Developing Resource use Scenarios for Europe by Dominik Wiedenhofer and Daniel Hausknost
We end up with a diagnosis of material saturation in Europe that may be expected to continue without major policy efforts or structural breaks. But, as explained in chapter 3.1 above, from an international equity and environmental point of view, freezing European material consumption is not enough: European resource use needs to be substantially reduced …
Environmentalists care for how economies will impact upon the environment and that they potentially might trigger environmental changesdetrimental to long-term civilization and survival. Economists care for securing the (typicallymuch shorter term) conditions of economic growth, employment and consumption opportunities.Environmentalists see nature as a dynamic force, economists focus on the agency of humans.The differences in time horizons alone make it difficult to meet mid-way.