- In the 2018 study, emissions reductions from subsidy removal were calculated by the researchers to be five hundred million to two billion metric tons of carbon dioxide per year by 2030. This figure is by no means “small.” It amounts to roughly one quarter of the energy-related emission reductions pledged by all of the countries participating in the Paris Agreement (four to eight billion tons). Hundreds of millions of metric tons of CO2 reductions is nothing to sneeze at, particularly when it can be achieved by a single policy approach that also brings strong fiscal, environmental and health benefits.
Moreover previous work has likely underestimated the emissions reductions that would occur, because commonly used techniques do not accurately capture the investment dynamics of fossil fuels. But these dynamics can greatly affect what oil and gas companies do.
Not talked about in the article, but related, a draw down in carbon creation, whether we're talking about drilling for or transporting oil, manufacturing, etc., reduces the risk of environmental harm. The less oil being pumped and moved, the less spills there will be. The less factories in operation, the less people develop asthma. The less planes flying, the less noise pollution interrupting the dynamic and vital sounds of nature. There's more at stake than just carbon reduction.
Until companies have to pay for the impact they have on this world, externalities included, its all just a pipe dream. It MUST hurt the P&L for there to be action.
I understand that. I'm just adding that there's secondary benefits to curbing this type of behavior and it's not just isolated to carbon emissions. There's all sorts of problems in the whole chain, from the extraction, processing, transportation, to eventual use of fossil fuels. It's important that we keep this stuff in the ground, but it's also important to remember why.
Six researchers have spent the last three years performing an assessment, and have determined that water is wet. I hate that researchers have to spend their time on this shit. Hey, here's an idea to test whether research is necessary: If you took all of the subsidies enjoyed by the fossil fuel industry, and gave them to renewables, what would change? Duh.
Why? Not only is it literally their job, to put numbers to what we may or may not know, and in the process generate what might be surprising answers and interesting new questions. More importantly though, so often there are things we take for granted as "common sense" that turn out to be wrong or at the very least, better data informs better policy decisions.I hate that researchers have to spend their time on this shit.
Their time should be spent on quantifying the magnitude of different efforts or plans; not on establishing the basic logic that subsidies give the recipients an anti-competitive bias over non-subsidized businesses. There are some things that are self-evident, and researchers time should be valued more highly.