Will We Ever Stop Using Fossil Fuels?

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Peter Dizikes | MIT News Office

Not without a carbon tax, suggests a study by an MIT economist.

Christopher Knittel

In recent years, proponents of clean energy have taken heart in the falling prices of solar and wind power, hoping they will drive an energy revolution. But a new study co-authored by an MIT professor suggests otherwise: Technology-driven cost reductions in fossil fuels will lead us to continue using all the oil, gas, and coal we can, unless governments pass new taxes on carbon emissions.
"If we don't adopt new policies, we're not going to be leaving fossil fuels in the ground," says Christopher Knittel, an energy economist at the MIT Sloan School of Management. "We need both a policy like a carbon tax and to put more R&D money into renewables."
While renewable energy has made promising gains in just the last few years — the cost of solar dropped by about two-thirds from 2009 to 2014 — new drilling and extraction techniques have made fossil fuels cheaper and markedly increased the amount of oil and gas we can tap into. In the U.S. alone, oil reserves have expanded 59 percent between 2000 and 2014, and natural gas reserves have expanded 94 percent in the same time.
"You often hear, when fossil fuel prices are going up, that if we just leave the market alone we'll wean ourselves off fossil fuels," adds Knittel. "But the message from the data is clear: That's not going to happen any time soon."
This trend — in which cheaper renewables are outpaced by even cheaper fossil fuels — portends drastic climate problems, since fossil fuel use has helped produce record warm temperatures worldwide.
The study concludes that burning all available fossil fuels would raise global average temperatures 10 to 15 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100; burning oil shale and methane hydrates, two more potential sources of copious fossil fuels, would add another 1.5 to 6.2 degrees Fahrenheit to that.
"Such scenarios imply difficult-to-imagine change in the planet and dramatic threats to human well-being in many parts of the world," the paper states. The authors add that "the world is likely to be awash in fossil fuels for decades and perhaps even centuries to come."
The paper, "Will We Ever Stop Using Fossil Fuels?," is published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives. The authors are Knittel, who is MIT's William Barton Rogers Professor in Energy; Michael Greenstone, the Milton Friedman Professor in Economics and the College at the University of Chicago; and Thomas Covert, an assistant professor at the Booth School of Business at the University of Chicago. The scholars examine costs over a time frame of five to 10 years, stating that further forecasts would be quite speculative, although the trend of cheaper fossil fuels could continue longer.

More efficient extraction
At least two technological advances have helped lower fossil fuel prices and expanded reserves: hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which has unlocked abundant natural gas supplies, and the production of oil from tar sands. Canada, where this type of oil production began in 1967, did not recognize tar sands as reserves until 1999 — an energy-accounting decision that increased world oil reserves by about 10 percent.
"There are hydrocarbons that we can now take out of the ground that 10 or 20 years ago we couldn't," Knittel observes.
So whereas some energy analysts once thought the apparently limited amount of oil reserves would make the price of oil unfeasibly high at some point, that dynamic seems less likely now.
To see how much better firms are at extracting fossil fuels from the Earth, consider this: The probability of an exploratory oil well being successful was 20 percent in 1949 and just 16 percent in the late 1960s, but by 2007 that figure had risen to 69 percent, and today it's around 50 percent, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
As a result of these improved oil and gas extraction techniques, we have consistently had about 50 years' worth of accessible oil and natural gas reserves in the ground over the last 30 years, the scholars note.
All told, global consumption of fossil fuels rose significantly from 2005 through 2014: about 7.5 percent for oil, 24 percent for coal, and 20 percent for natural gas. About 65 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions are derived from fossil fuels, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Of those emissions, coal generates about 45 percent, oil around 35 percent, and natural gas about 20 percent.

Renewable hope
To be sure, renewable energy has seen an impressive decline in its prices within the last decade. But looking at the "levelized" cost of energy (which accounts for its long-term production and costs), solar is still about twice as expensive as natural gas. The need to handle sharp evening increases in power consumption — what energy analysts call the "duck curve" of demand — also means power suppliers, already wary of solar power's potential to reduce their revenues, may continue to invest in fossil fuel-based power plants.
The development of better battery technology, for storing electricity, is vital for increased use of renewables in both electricity and transportation, where electric vehicles can be plugged into the grid for charging. But the example of electric vehicles also shows how far battery technology must progress to make a large environmental impact. Currently only 12 percent of fossil fuel-based power plants are sufficiently green that electric vehicles powered by them are responsible for fewer emissions than a Toyota Prius.
Alternately, look at it this way: Currently battery costs for an electric vehicle are about $325 per kilowatt-hour (KwH). At that cost, Knittel, Greenstone, and Covert calculate, the price of oil would need to exceed $350 per barrel to make an electric vehicle cheaper to operate. But in 2015, the average price of oil was about $49 per barrel.
"It's certainly the case that solar and wind prices have fallen dramatically and battery costs have fallen," Knittel says. "But the price of gas is a third almost of what it used to be. It's tough to compete against $1.50 gasoline. On the electricity side … the cheap natural gas still swamps, in a negative way, the cost of solar and even wind."

Emphasizing the case for a carbon tax
That may change, of course. As Knittel observes, new solar techniques — such as thin-film layers that integrate solar arrays into windows — may lead to even steeper reductions in the price of renewables, especially as they could help reduce installation costs, a significant part of the solar price tag.
Still, the immediate problem of accumulating carbon emissions means some form of carbon tax is necessary, Knittel says — especially given what we now know about declining fossil fuel costs.
"Clearly we need to get out in front of climate change, and the longer we wait, the tougher it's going to be," Knittel emphasizes.
Knittel supports the much-discussed policy lever of a carbon tax to make up for the disparity in energy costs. That concept could take several specific forms. One compelling reason for it, from an economists' viewpoint, is that fossil fuels impose costs on society — "externalities" — that users do not share. These include the increased health care costs that result from fossil fuel pollution, or the infrastructure costs that are likely to result from rising sea levels.
"Taxes on externalities are not inconsistent with the free-market system," Knittel says. "In fact, they're required to make the free-market system achieve the efficient outcome. This idea that a pure free-market economy never has taxes is wrong."
Knittel adds: "The point of the paper is that if we don't adopt policies, we're not leaving fossils fuels in the ground."

Links

• Paper: "Will We Ever Stop using Fossil Fuels?"
• Inside climate politics
• Vehicle fuel economy standards as global climate policy
• Q&A: Christopher Knittel on the EPA's greenhouse gas plan
• 3 Questions: Are we entering a golden age of natural gas trade?
• Fuel for thought

Scientists Settle On Low End Of Carbon Budget Spectrum

Climate Home - Alex Pashley

Economies must decarbonise rapidly to avert dangerous warming, say scientists (credit: UN)

Countries agreed last year to limit global warming to 2C this century and "pursue efforts" to hold it to 1.5C to avoid dangerous climate change.
Scientists have come up with a range of estimates for the cap on greenhouse gas pollution needed to have a likely chance of avoiding that threshold. It's known as the "carbon budget".
A review of the evidence on Wednesday published in journal Nature Climate Change recommended dismissing the more generous allowances.
From 2015 onwards, there is only room for another 590-1,240 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent, it found. That includes other gases like ozone, methane, and nitrogen dioxide.
Some studies have put the upper limit as high as 2,390 GtCO2. But the report authors said those figures were not robust as they did not account for all greenhouse gases or had other methodological limitations.The findings add urgency to international effort to curb global emissions, which stood at 40Gt CO2e in 2014 and at current rates will eat up the budget within 15-30 years. It requires overhauling centuries of fossil fuel-based development and the swift adoption of clean energy technologies.
"We have figured out this budget is at the low end of what studies indicated before, and if we don't start reducing our emissions immediately, we will blow it in a few decades," said Joeri Rogelj at the Vienna-based International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, who led the study.
"[M]any different factors can lead to carbon budgets that are either slightly smaller or slightly larger. We wanted to understand these differences, and provide clarity on the issue for policymakers and the public."

Links

• Analysis: Is avoiding 2C of global warming possible?
• Rhetoric or reality? Climate scientists divided on 1.5C warming goal
• Oceans, forests and ecosystems continue to soak up rising man-made carbon emissions, for now, say scientists
• China unhappy with 'carbon budget' reference in IPCC review
• Global warming 'hard to reverse' say scientists
• Carbon dioxide levels now 61% higher than 1990

Six Burning Questions For Climate Science To Answer Post-Paris

The Conversation - John Church  Alistair Hobday  Andrew Lenton  Steve Rintoul

We still don't know enough about questions such as where the tipping points are for Arctic ice melt. Christine Zenino/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY

Much has been written about the challenge of achieving the targets set out in the Paris climate agreement, which calls for global warming to be held well below 2℃ and ideally within 1.5℃ of pre-industrial temperatures.
That's the headline goal, but the Paris agreement also calls for a strong focus on climate science as well as on curbing greenhouse emissions. Article 7.7c of the agreement specifically calls for:

Strengthening scientific knowledge on climate, including research, systematic observation of the climate system and early warning systems, in a manner that informs climate services and supports decision-making.

The next paragraph also calls on countries to help poorer nations, which have less scientific capability, to do the same.
But what are the many elements of climate science that need strengthening to achieve the aims of the Paris agreement? Here are six questions that need answers.

What do the targets mean?
What do the 2℃ and 1.5℃ targets imply for our climate and adaptation responses? Even warming of 2℃ will have significant impacts for humans and natural systems, albeit much less than would occur if we allowed warming to continue unchecked. Still, climate science needs to clarify what is gained by meeting the 1.5℃ and 2℃ targets, and the consequences of missing them.

Are we on track?
It will be essential to monitor the climate system over the coming years and decades to see whether our efforts at curbing warming are delivering the expected benefits, or if more measures are needed.
The path to these ambitious temperature targets will not be smooth – there will be periods of rapid warming interspersed with periods of slower warming. We will not meet the targets if the world relaxes on mitigation efforts because of a short-term slowing in the rate of warming as a result of natural variability, such as we saw between 1998 and 2013.
Greenhouse gas concentrations, global temperatures, rainfall and water balance changes, extreme weather events, ocean heat content, sea level and terrestrial and marine carbon sinks are all vitally important elements to track. A focus on surface temperature alone is not sufficient.

What are the tipping points in the climate system?

Tipping points are thresholds beyond which there will be large, rapid and possibly irreversible changes in the climate system. The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are one example – beyond a certain level, warming will cause large and irreversible loss of ice, and sea level rise of many metres over the ensuing centuries. Thresholds also exist for ecosystems, such as the Great Barrier Reef, and the services they provide, including food production and water supply.
We need to know what these thresholds are, the consequences of crossing them, and how much and how fast we will have to reduce emissions in order to avoid this.

How will climate and extreme events change?
Many places already experience weather extremes such as heatwaves, droughts, fire, floods, storm surges and cyclones, all with damaging consequences. Many of the negative impacts of climate change will occur through changes in the magnitude, duration and frequency of these extreme events.
To adapt to these changes and manage the risks, more detailed information is needed on local and regional scales. It is important to recognise that 2℃ of globally averaged warming does not imply 2℃ everywhere (many regions, particularly on land, will have larger temperature rises). Extremes may increase faster than averages.
We also need to understand the short-term (decades) and long-term (centuries) implications of choices made today.

What are the appropriate adaptation pathways?
Even if the Paris targets are achieved, some adaptation will be essential. So how do we reduce vulnerability, minimise costs and maximise opportunities? Given the changes already observed with the roughly 1℃ of global warming so far, it's fair to say that more severe impacts will occur during this century.
Keeping warming within 2℃ and moving to a lower-carbon world presents many challenges. Considerable work will be needed to help identify climate-resilient pathways and allow humans to adapt to the changes.
Successful adaptation will require an ability to foresee and prepare for inevitable changes in the likelihoods of extreme climate events from year to year. Development of climate forecasts on timescales of a year to decades may provide opportunities to reduce losses in critical sectors such as water, agriculture, infrastructure, tourism, fisheries, energy and natural resources.

Can we take greenhouse gases back out of the atmosphere?
Most scenarios for future emissions that keep warming below the agreed Paris target require not just a reduction in emissions, but also the ability to reduce greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere – so-called "negative emissions".
One proposed method of partially meeting our energy needs and reducing CO₂ concentrations is called BioEnergy Carbon Capture and Storage. It would involve growing biofuels for energy, then capturing and burying the carbon dioxide released by these fuels. While potentially important, its large-scale deployment poses important questions regarding its costs and benefits and how the large amount of agricultural land required would compete with food production to feed the world's growing population.
To keep climate change below 2℃, some have proposed a need for more radical geoengineering options if emissions are not phased out quickly enough. These include schemes to cool the Earth by reducing solar radiation. But these proposals fail to address other knock-on issues of carbon dioxide emissions, such as ocean acidification. They also pose large risks, are beset with ethical issues and beg the question of who is going to take responsibility for such schemes.
The Paris agreement proves that the world's nations know we need strong climate action. But society faces tough choices as we seek to find economically, socially and environmentally feasible ways to meet the targets. Informed decisions will depend on robust science at both local and global scales, which means that far from being done, climate science is now more important than ever.

Links

• CSIRO boss's failed logic over climate science could waste billions in taxes
• Climate science will be sourced elsewhere after CSIRO cuts: chief scientist
• CSIRO climate cuts will trash a decade of hard work with the Bureau of Meteorology and universities
• The Paris climate agreement: the real work starts now

Fossil Fuel Use Must Fall Twice As Fast As Thought To Contain Global Warming - Study

The Guardian -  Tim Radford

Available carbon budget is half as big as thought if global warming is to be kept within 2C limit agreed internationally as being the point of no return, researchers say.

Smoke billows from a coal fired power plant in Shanxi, China. Photograph: Kevin Frayer/Getty Images

Climate scientists have bad news for governments, energy companies, motorists, passengers and citizens everywhere in the world: to contain global warming to the limits agreed by 195 nations in Paris last December, they will have to cut fossil fuel combustion at an even faster rate than anybody had predicted. Joeri Rogelj, research scholar at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria, and European and Canadian colleagues propose in Nature Climate Change that all previous estimates of the quantities of carbon dioxide that can be released into the atmosphere before the thermometer rises to potentially catastrophic levels are too generous.
Instead of a range of permissible emissions estimates that ranged up to 2,390 bn tons from 2015 onwards, the very most humans could release would be 1,240 bn tons.

Available levels
In effect, that halves the levels of diesel and petrol available for petrol tanks, coal for power stations, and natural gas for central heating and cooking available to humankind before the global average temperature – already 1C higher than it was at the start of the Industrial Revolution – reaches the notional 2C mark long agreed internationally as being the point of no return for the planet.
In fact, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change summit in Paris agreed a target "well below" 2C, in recognition of ominous projections − one of which was that, at such planetary temperatures, sea levels would rise high enough to submerge several small island states.
The Nature Climate Change paper is a restatement of a problem that has been clear for decades. Carbon dioxide proportions in the atmosphere are linked to planetary surface temperatures and, as they rise, so does average temperature. For most of human history, these proportions oscillated around 280 parts per million.
The global exploitation, on a massive scale, of fossil fuels drove the expansion of agriculture, the growth of economies, a sevenfold growth in human population, a sea level rise of 14cms, and a temperature rise of, so far, 1C.
To stop temperatures increasing another 3C or more and sea levels rising by more than a metre, humans have to reduce fossil fuel emissions. By how much these must be reduced is difficult to calculate.
The global carbon budget is really the balance between what animals emit – in this context, the word animals includes humans with cars and aeroplanes and factories – and what plants and algae can absorb. So the calculations are bedevilled by uncertainties about forests, grasslands and oceans.
To make things simpler, climate scientists translate the target into the billions of tons of carbon dioxide that, ideally, may be released into the atmosphere from 2015 onwards. Even these, however, are estimates. There is general agreement that a limit of 590 bn tons would safely keep the world from overheating in ways that would impose ever greater strains on human society. The argument is about the upper limit of such estimates.
Dr Rogelj says: "In order to have a reasonable chance of keeping global warming below 2C, we can only emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide, ever. That's our carbon budget.
"This has been understood for about a decade, and the physics behind this concept are well understood, but many different factors can lead to carbon budgets that are either slightly smaller or slightly larger. We wanted to understand these differences, and to provide clarity on the issue for policymakers and the public.
"This study shows that, in some cases, we have been overestimating the budget by 50 to more than 200%. At the high end, this is a difference of more than 1,000 billion tons of carbon dioxide."
The same study takes a closer look at why estimates of the "safe" level of emissions have varied so widely.
One complicating factor has been, of course, uncertainty about what humans might do, and another has been about the other more transient greenhouse gases, such as methane and the oxides of nitrogen.
Although short-lived and released in smaller quantities, some of these are potentially far more potent than carbon dioxide as an influence on planetary temperatures.

Complex calculations
But Dr Rogelj and his colleagues found that a significant cause of variation was simply a consequence of the different assumptions and methodologies inherent in such complex calculations.
So the researchers have re-examined both the options and the approaches, and have worked out a global figure that, they suggest, could be relevant to "real-world policy".
It takes into account the consequences of all human activity, and it embraces detailed outlines of possible low-carbon choices. It also offers, they say, a 66% chance of staying within the internationally-agreed limit.
"We now better understand the carbon budget for keeping global warming below 2C," Dr Rogelj says. "This carbon budget is very important to know because it defines how much carbon dioxide we are allowed to release into the atmosphere, ever.
"We have figured out that this budget is at the low end of what studies indicated before, and if we don't start reducing our emissions immediately, we will blow it in a few decades."

Links

• Oil industry must thwart 'misguided' divestment campaign, says Saudi minister
• Bill Gates: World will deliver 'clean energy breakthrough' within 15 years
• Who's in line to be the next UN climate change chief?

Taking Aim At Climate Change: Australia's Military Sees Rising Challenges

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

Salome Ululagi stands in the remains of her house destroyed by Tropical Cyclone Winston in Tavua Village, Koro Island, Fiji. Photo: UNICEF

When Cyclone Winston barrelled into Fiji last week, Australia's first response was to dispatch RAAF Globemaster cargo planes with urgent aid and defence personnel to help the battered Pacific populace.
The amphibious vessel HMAS Canberra is also expected to make landfall on Tuesday, bringing more assistance to a nation hit by the strongest tempest – with sustained winds of 287km/h – ever recorded in the southern hemisphere.

Climate change is not a far-off threat for tomorrow's generals. It is here to be dealt with today.
Michael Thomas, retired Australian Army major

For years, Australia's military has regularly been called upon to assist with disasters in its backyard as well as during floods or cyclones at home.

Royal Australian Air Force pilots, Flight Lieutenant Simon Marshall (left) and Flying Officer Jake Nicholas, prepare to land a C-17A in Suva, Fiji, as part of Operation Fiji Assist.

Those demands will likely increase in the future as climate change presents "a major challenge for countries in Australia's immediate region", the new defence white paper declared last week in a little remarked upon tilt in the nation's military planning blueprint.
Most of the media attention focused on big-ticket purchases – such as 12 new submarines costing $150 billion to build and operate – and China's displeasure at being the unnamed paramount threat. But the guidelines for Australia's future defence posture also make multiple references to the near-term risks global warming will pose to some of our fragile neighbours.

Members of Australia's reconnaisance and assessment team prepare to disembark a RAAF C-17A Globemaster aircraft at the Nausori International Airport in Fiji. Photo: Supplied.

"Climate change will see higher temperatures, increased sea-level rise and will increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events," the report says.
"These effects will exacerbate the challenges of population growth and environmental degradation, and will contribute to food shortages and undermine economic development."
In short, the military will be called on more often to respond to instability or natural disasters.

Soldiers from 8th/9th RAR, and engineers from 2nd CER, clear the train line that runs through Grantham, Queensland, after flooding in 2011. Photo: Petty Officer Damian Pawlenko

Michael Thomas, a retired army major who has been advocating Australia join the US and other allies in paying greater heed to global warming, sees a shift in urgency compared with the Rudd government's 2009 version.
"Whereas the 2009 defence white paper stated the likely strategic consequences of climate change would not be felt until after 2030, this [paper] notes that climate change will be one of the key drivers that will shape the strategic environment 'to 2035'," Thomas says.
"This implies that climate change is not a far-off threat for tomorrow's generals. It is here to be dealt with today."

Sailors on the flight deck of the HMAS Canberra during the Royal Australian Navy exercises off Jervis Bay last November. Photo: Kate Geraghty

Bipartisan view
The Gillard government's white paper in 2013 also identified the climate as a national security threat but this year's version is notable because it brings a bipartisan consensus for the first time.
"[I]t would probably not have happened under [former PM Tony] Abbott's leadership," Thomas says. "So credit [is] due to Malcolm Turnbull."
That view of a political shift under Turnbull is also shared from afar.
David Titley, a retired rear admiral of the US Navy who combines his scientific training as an oceanographer with his military rank to nudge the Pentagon to take climate change seriously, visited Australia's Defence Force Academy last October and detected the altered posture first-hand.
"The thing that struck me was ... how much under the previous leadership, the defence bureaucracy had been intimidated into 'do not touch this issue'," Titley says. "You could see with the new PM, at least you could have that discussion."
As with the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review – "the 100,000-foot" overview of the US military's threats and capabilities – having climate change identified in the defence white paper as a challenge "is a very good step in the right direction", he says.
It gives policymakers or defence planners being grilled by politicians or their chiefs some cover, allowing them to point back to the paper when asked why Australia is spending more time or resources on the issue.
Titley should know. He has testified before both sides of the polarised US political divide, including the mostly climate change-denying Republican leadership such as hard-right Texan presidential hopeful Senator Ted Cruz.

Extreme extremes
Titley sees parallels between the views of some Australian conservatives and those of the Texas Republicans, who typically dismiss the recent spate of record drought, heat and massive floods as merely a natural consequence of their highly variable climate.
"Their view is" 'The rest of the country says it's extreme, we say it's Texas'," Mr Titley says. "At some point, though, everyone has a breaking point – but we're not sure where it is."
Australia's recent equivalents were probably the extreme heat prior and during Victoria's 2009 Black Saturday bushfires or the Queensland floods in 2011. Record national heat in 2013 was also backed up by a very hot 2014 and a record hot final three months to end 2015.
Odd weather activity abounds even if the underlying climate signal may be hard to gauge.
Australia this summer has had its second latest start to a tropical cyclone season in the past half century of reliable records, producing a relatively dry wet season across the north, while the south of the country faces a long and active fire season well into autumn.
Sydney will post a February with just one day with a below average maximum temperature on current forecasts – the previous record low was five. The streak of 23 days above 26 degrees has eclipsed the previous record of 19 such days, and may run at least another week.
Extreme weather events are among the climate challenges for Australia's military not just because of the extra demand anticipated for their services but also since many bases are exposed to impacts.

Creeping change
But even the creeping background warming can't be ignored if it alters the ability of the military to train or operate.
Extra heat affects troops' health while ill-planned live-fire exercises can have huge consequences – witness the State Mine fire during the searing spring of 2013 that started at an army range, destroying about 50,000 hectares and threatening Blue Mountains towns.
Thomas says rising sea-levels are another encroaching risk the military has rightly identified, given naval facilities in particular typically hug the coast.
What he finds hard to square with the military's increased concern about the matter is why another arm of the government – the CSIRO – is preparing to axe its world-renowned sea-level research team.
The threat to the Hobart-based group is part of sweeping cuts to CSIRO's climate programs that could halve or worse its research capacity to predict what's coming and advise the military – and the wider population – how to deal with it.
"If these cuts proceed – who will do undertake this work?," he asks.
"If anything, given that the defence white paper has now cited sea-level rise as a risk to our defence bases, there is a requirement for improved understanding and increased granularity of how sea-level rise will unfold across this century – not less."

Links

• CSIRO becoming a 'glorified consultancy', as climate adaptation program at risk
• Coral growth already being affected by acidifying oceans, new research finds
• Age, gender, race? Climate scepticism is predominantly party political

$5.3 Trillion A Year In Fossil Fuel Subsidies Is Idiotic

CleanTechnica - Zachary Shahan

Ah, society — takes us decades to turn a simple, life-saving corner.
 Subsidizing fossil fuels in the 21st century has got to be one of the dumbest things society has ever done… (and we've done a lot of dumb things).
We have cheaper alternatives that don't kill us and cause all kinds of health problems and suffering beforehand.
We've got locally available, renewable resources that don't have us exporting billions of dollars a year to countries in the Middle East, Venezuela, etc.
We've got zero-emission technologies that won't fry our planet and burn much of the human race.
But we choose to continue subsidizing dirty, toxic, expensive fossil fuels instead.
The G20 "wised up" to the idiocy and agreed two years ago to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, but a new study from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) finds that we continue to subsidize fossil fuels with trillions of dollars of citizen-earned cash.
According to the study, the US dumps a ridiculous $700 billion a year on the dirty subsidies for the dirty piles of coal, gas, and oil.
That's $2,180 per American per year.
Yep, aside from your electricity and gas bills, you are essentially sending $2,000+ to oil, gas, and coal companies because… because… well, they need our help, no?
Australia, where the recent G20 meeting was held, has its citizens helping these poor industries to the tune of $1,260 per person.
The UK gives $41 billion a year, which comes to $635 per person.
Developing countries Mexico, India, and Indonesia average $250 per person per year.
As a percentage of GDP, the subsidies come out as follows:

• USA: 3.8%
• Australia: 2%
• UK: 1.4%
• China: 20%
• India: 12%
• Ukraine: 60%

Staggering.
The world as a whole subsidizes fossil fuels with $5.3 trillion in subsidies per year.
Subsidies included in the report go beyond simple tax breaks, direct subsidies, etc., and also include externalities (something I consistently argue should be done).
Those include the pollution that causes innumerable health problems and premature deaths as well as the harmful effects of global warming and climate change.
If we were brave enough to cut these subsidies, the IMF estimates that 1.6 million premature deaths from outdoor air pollution a year would be prevented, about 50% of those that occur, and global CO2 emissions would be cut 20%.
It seems like common sense, no?
Cut the damn subsidies. Stop giving companies trillions of dollars a year to kill us faster.
The UAE is doing it… somewhat.

Links

• IMF Figures Show UK Government Still Subsidising Fossil Fuel, While Renewables Are Slashed
• The IMF Just Destroyed The Main Argument Against Clean Energy
• Fossil Fuels Subsidies Cost World $5.3 Trillion A Year – $10 Million A Minute
• Energy Subsidy Nonsense — Energy Subsidy Narrow-Mindedness Gets Old
• Oil Subsidies & Natural Gas Subsidies — Subsidies For The Big Boys
• G20 Leaders Agree To Phase Out "Inefficient" Fossil Fuel Subsidies
• G20 Supporting Fossil Fuels To The Tune Of $88 Billion

Overlooked Law Could Be Powerful Tool To Fight Climate Change, Scholars Say

Columbia Daily Spectator - Dan Garisto

Michael Gerrard, professor of climate law, is the director of the Sabin Center on Climate Law. Ethan Wu / Senior Staff Photographer

Attempting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has been a key struggle for President Barack Obama, CC ’83, with both houses of Congress led by Republicans who have outright opposed even acknowledging the existence of climate change.
But a Columbia-led team of legal scholars may have found a promising, never-before-used route for enacting emission reductions that was previously overlooked. The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law published an article last month that details how Section 115 of the Clean Air Act can be used to compel the United States to cut emissions—without going through Congress.
When the article was released, Obama’s plan to reduce greenhouse emissions by 25 percent, the Clean Power Plan, was still going forward, albeit under intense legal scrutiny. But earlier this month, the Supreme Court issued an unprecedented stay to prevent the plan from moving forward.

Atrianne Dolom / Staff Designer

“I thought it was the most environmentally destructive thing the Supreme Court has done in very many years,” Michael Gerrard, a professor of environmental law and co-author of the article, said. “It was shutting down the most important effort that the U.S. was undertaking to deal with the world's most pressing environmental problem.”
The drama surrounding the Clean Power Plan’s judicial struggles increased, as only days later, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia died.
Without Scalia on the court, the vote will likely be tied 4-4, making Scalia’s replacement the deciding vote.
However, according to Gerrard, using Section 115 of the Clean Air Act would allow Obama or the next president to bypass both the congressional and judicial gauntlet.
“The Clean Power Plan has limited coverage—it only applies to power plants. It doesn’t apply to any other part of the economy,” Gerrard said. “We wanted to see if there was some other legal pathway that might allow the administration to regulate greenhouse gases.”
Under Section 115, the Environmental Protection Agency can force states responsible for polluting other countries to cut emissions so long as those other countries agree to cut their own emissions. Agreements made at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference between 195 countries to reduce carbon dioxide production could make this reciprocity clause easy to fulfill.
In addition to the ability to bypass Congress, a regulation on the basis of Section 115 would also be supported by strong, broad language that could render judicial attacks null.
“[Congress] did not limit this use to bordering countries—and if you follow a textualist analysis, like Justice Scalia said he did, the plain text of it is quite broad,” Gerrard said.
Previously, Section 115 had been overlooked by lawyers because it was assumed to apply only to Canada and Mexico, the two countries bordering the U.S. The only previous attempt to use Section 115 occurred at the end of the Carter administration, and was promptly squashed when Reagan entered office.
Section 115 was subsequently out of the public eye and thought to be inconsequential.
“We saw it as something of a sideshow, but we decided to look into it more deeply, and the deeper we dove into it the more fruitful it became,” Gerrard said.
However, the scholars’ analysis, while promising, holds little potential for immediate change. Enacting regulations based on Section 115 would take a great deal of planning that Gerrard said was unlikely to happen due to the Obama administration’s investment in the Clean Power Plan.
“I think it's a very helpful tool for an administration that wants to act on climate change but can't get the help of Congress,” Gerrard said. “If Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders is the next president, they may well utilize this.”