this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
833 points (99.6% liked)

World News

39100 readers
5145 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] krashmo 103 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That's quite literally the least we could do.

[–] [email protected] 56 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Doing literally nothing to reduce fossil fuels would be better than the thing we are currently doing, which is subsidising them. Really puts into perspective all the climate "promises".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Tax them. Heavy.

[–] kinther 62 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We absolutely should be ending subsidies on fossil fuels, the meat industry, and other polluters. This will cause a ripple effect on the cost of everyday items and the standard of living globally, so of course there will be those that say it can't be done. The problem is the game of musical chairs will eventually end, either when we're completely fucked or at a time of our choosing.

[–] grabyourmotherskeys 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ask they have to do is scale back 1% the first year, 2% the next, etc. The second it looks like a long term investment won't pay off they'll stop making them. Then we'll see supply chain issues slowly increase which will force fleet vehicle purchases over to electric or hydrogen faster.

That will spread into the personal vehicle market.

Demand will reduce for IC vehicles and so on.

You don't need to make massive changes to have a big impact over time. The problem is every thinking this will get you shouted down by almost anyone with real money.

The thing to do is also incentivize them to invest in the new, growing opportunities but again they want too, but without giving anything up.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Then ending subsidies would take 100 year, which is way too slow.

[–] Serinus 5 points 1 year ago

Eight years by my count.

[–] odunke01 4 points 1 year ago

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (after 10 years = 55%) 11, 12, 13 (91%) 14 years = 105% (Hey now they can start paying us /s)

Or is my math/understanding wrong?

[–] hark 41 points 1 year ago

Does this count the wars we do for it? Always funny to me when people claim that renewables aren't viable without subsidies and yet here's the very mature fossil fuel industry sucking up way more in subsidies.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Is the purpose of these subsidies to maintain oil and gas infrastructure so that the military can also use it?

If the infrastructure is necessary for defense but not necessary for civilian use then it sounds like it should be paid for via tax, be maintained by the government, and counted as defense spending.

This would increase the military's fuel cost (to the true cost) and higher gas prices brought about by ending the subsidies would incentivize lower carbon transportation methods for civilians.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I scanned the article, and I often hear about this. Is there a list of the specific subsidies for fossil fuels?

I am happy to reach out to my Congress people as I donate to them, but they respond best to short and specific requests.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

America, like Canada, subsidizes TF out of the oil companies to intentionally deflate the price of gas. Start looking there.

Also worth noting because it is still destructive, we subsidize TF out of corn too, to the detriment of other crops.

I don't think people realize how under-priced almost everything they purchase is, and it's all because of mass subsidies.

We need to end these subsidies but damn if people won't freak over their groceries even more.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Sounds like communism!

[–] Serinus 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We all have an interest in overproducing crops. If, say, Florida becomes an aquarium, or there's a disease that wipes out a lot of a particular monoculture, we don't want a ridiculous spike in food prices (or worse).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

So start subsidizing diversity in cultures? Better for ecology too.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Is a lack of tax really a subsidy?

I would think most of the subsidies are governments paying companies to extract it locally rather than import it from a cheaper country, so the country is less exposed to world events.

Where a non-subsidy version of this would be to tax the bollocks off any foreign imported fuels so it makes more sense to extract it locally.

Of course the reality is that most countries need both locally extracted and imported fuel to meet demand, and that you, the taxpayer, will be picking up the bill in either case.

It would be better for everyone if we just left that shit in the ground where it belongs, but we ain't there yet.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Too little too late. We’ve been warning you motherfuckers for easy over a hundred years, but nobody ever listens to scientists, 🤷

Lucky for you science will swoop in and save you again anyways. Though the planet is still pretty fucked.

Fucking “world leaders”.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Lucky for you science will swoop in and save you again anyways.

We can hope so, but the problems are escalating quickly and we aren't moving quickly to mitigate them.

[–] FinalRemix 7 points 1 year ago

Moving quickly to mitigate them doesn't help this quarter's returns. Therefore, move to strike. Seconded. The ayes have it.

[–] jcit878 5 points 1 year ago

we look to be at a point where it doesnt matter how quickly we move, we cant mitigate them now (at least not the problems we will face over the next 50 years or so). We made our bed, now we have to lie in it. And im not saying its too late therefore do nothing, there is still worse cases we can try to avoid.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Though the planet is still pretty fucked.

I'm pretty sure the planet will be fine. Those of us trying to live on it though might have some problems.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Sorry when I said “the planet” I meant more like the delicate ecosystems and life cycles will be fucked. We’re already starting to see signs of it with all the various population collapses.