▲ 417 ▼ The world came tantalizingly close to a deal to phase out fossil fuels (www.theverge.com) submitted 2 years ago by boem@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world 140 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] chitak166@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago (2 children) How? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Pea666@feddit.nl 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) Funneling subsidies and tax breaks from fossil fuel to sustainable energy sources. In the Netherlands alone, the around 40 billion euros are spent by the government each year directly or indirectly subsidizing fossil fuel. Kerosine airplane fuel is untaxed for example, while consumer car fuel comes with a 20% (ish) tax. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chitak166@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Subsidies don't actually make something cheaper, it just shifts the burden to the taxpayer. Taxing fossil fuels to the point where they are no longer the cheapest option is a nation shooting itself in the foot, which is why none of them do it. It's not just about price for the individual. It's about economic expansion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Pea666@feddit.nl 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sure it shifts the burden to the taxpayer and I would like my tax money to be spent on other things please. Companies aren’t going to change their policies voluntarily, it’s up to governments to make better decisions with my money and make other options more viable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chitak166@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago It's not just companies though. It's states. Militaries, for example, would not be able to improve as quickly if we forewent the cheapest energy sources or made them artificially expensive. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Charging them for the negative externalities. Like coal kills way more people than nuclear but there’s no tax on coal plants for the harm caused. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] chitak166@lemmy.world -7 points 2 years ago (2 children) Then you're artificially increasing the cost of the fuel. It's still going to be absolutely cheaper than alternatives. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Putting a tax on externalities isn’t artificially increasing the cost of the fuel. It’s fixing a market failure. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chitak166@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago (2 children) Putting a tax on externalities isn’t artificially increasing the cost of the fuel. I'm sorry, what? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago Pollution has a cost to society. Someone has to pay for it. Putting that cost on the polluter is the most efficient way to handle it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] markr@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago For example, a business routinely dumps its toxic waste into a watershed, polluting that watershed and imposing huge costs on all the other users of the watershed that require non-toxic water. As this lowers the 'market price' for the goods produced by the business, the incentive is to always do this rather than pay the cost of safely processing the toxic waste. See for example the massive PFA problems. Here: https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/tap-water-study-detects-pfas-forever-chemicals-across-us permalink fedilink source parent [–] markr@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Allowing fossil fuels to not pay their use costs is artificially decreasing the cost. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chitak166@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago I totally agree, but nations won't understand that because they are modern-day fiefdoms. Their main purpose is to support their ruling class. Funnel as much money as quickly as possible. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Pea666@feddit.nl 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) Funneling subsidies and tax breaks from fossil fuel to sustainable energy sources. In the Netherlands alone, the around 40 billion euros are spent by the government each year directly or indirectly subsidizing fossil fuel. Kerosine airplane fuel is untaxed for example, while consumer car fuel comes with a 20% (ish) tax. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chitak166@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Subsidies don't actually make something cheaper, it just shifts the burden to the taxpayer. Taxing fossil fuels to the point where they are no longer the cheapest option is a nation shooting itself in the foot, which is why none of them do it. It's not just about price for the individual. It's about economic expansion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Pea666@feddit.nl 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sure it shifts the burden to the taxpayer and I would like my tax money to be spent on other things please. Companies aren’t going to change their policies voluntarily, it’s up to governments to make better decisions with my money and make other options more viable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chitak166@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago It's not just companies though. It's states. Militaries, for example, would not be able to improve as quickly if we forewent the cheapest energy sources or made them artificially expensive. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] chitak166@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Subsidies don't actually make something cheaper, it just shifts the burden to the taxpayer. Taxing fossil fuels to the point where they are no longer the cheapest option is a nation shooting itself in the foot, which is why none of them do it. It's not just about price for the individual. It's about economic expansion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Pea666@feddit.nl 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sure it shifts the burden to the taxpayer and I would like my tax money to be spent on other things please. Companies aren’t going to change their policies voluntarily, it’s up to governments to make better decisions with my money and make other options more viable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chitak166@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago It's not just companies though. It's states. Militaries, for example, would not be able to improve as quickly if we forewent the cheapest energy sources or made them artificially expensive. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Pea666@feddit.nl 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sure it shifts the burden to the taxpayer and I would like my tax money to be spent on other things please. Companies aren’t going to change their policies voluntarily, it’s up to governments to make better decisions with my money and make other options more viable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chitak166@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago It's not just companies though. It's states. Militaries, for example, would not be able to improve as quickly if we forewent the cheapest energy sources or made them artificially expensive. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] chitak166@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago It's not just companies though. It's states. Militaries, for example, would not be able to improve as quickly if we forewent the cheapest energy sources or made them artificially expensive. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Charging them for the negative externalities. Like coal kills way more people than nuclear but there’s no tax on coal plants for the harm caused. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] chitak166@lemmy.world -7 points 2 years ago (2 children) Then you're artificially increasing the cost of the fuel. It's still going to be absolutely cheaper than alternatives. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Putting a tax on externalities isn’t artificially increasing the cost of the fuel. It’s fixing a market failure. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chitak166@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago (2 children) Putting a tax on externalities isn’t artificially increasing the cost of the fuel. I'm sorry, what? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago Pollution has a cost to society. Someone has to pay for it. Putting that cost on the polluter is the most efficient way to handle it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] markr@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago For example, a business routinely dumps its toxic waste into a watershed, polluting that watershed and imposing huge costs on all the other users of the watershed that require non-toxic water. As this lowers the 'market price' for the goods produced by the business, the incentive is to always do this rather than pay the cost of safely processing the toxic waste. See for example the massive PFA problems. Here: https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/tap-water-study-detects-pfas-forever-chemicals-across-us permalink fedilink source parent [–] markr@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Allowing fossil fuels to not pay their use costs is artificially decreasing the cost. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chitak166@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago I totally agree, but nations won't understand that because they are modern-day fiefdoms. Their main purpose is to support their ruling class. Funnel as much money as quickly as possible. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] chitak166@lemmy.world -7 points 2 years ago (2 children) Then you're artificially increasing the cost of the fuel. It's still going to be absolutely cheaper than alternatives. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Putting a tax on externalities isn’t artificially increasing the cost of the fuel. It’s fixing a market failure. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chitak166@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago (2 children) Putting a tax on externalities isn’t artificially increasing the cost of the fuel. I'm sorry, what? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago Pollution has a cost to society. Someone has to pay for it. Putting that cost on the polluter is the most efficient way to handle it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] markr@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago For example, a business routinely dumps its toxic waste into a watershed, polluting that watershed and imposing huge costs on all the other users of the watershed that require non-toxic water. As this lowers the 'market price' for the goods produced by the business, the incentive is to always do this rather than pay the cost of safely processing the toxic waste. See for example the massive PFA problems. Here: https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/tap-water-study-detects-pfas-forever-chemicals-across-us permalink fedilink source parent [–] markr@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Allowing fossil fuels to not pay their use costs is artificially decreasing the cost. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chitak166@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago I totally agree, but nations won't understand that because they are modern-day fiefdoms. Their main purpose is to support their ruling class. Funnel as much money as quickly as possible. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Putting a tax on externalities isn’t artificially increasing the cost of the fuel. It’s fixing a market failure. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chitak166@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago (2 children) Putting a tax on externalities isn’t artificially increasing the cost of the fuel. I'm sorry, what? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago Pollution has a cost to society. Someone has to pay for it. Putting that cost on the polluter is the most efficient way to handle it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] markr@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago For example, a business routinely dumps its toxic waste into a watershed, polluting that watershed and imposing huge costs on all the other users of the watershed that require non-toxic water. As this lowers the 'market price' for the goods produced by the business, the incentive is to always do this rather than pay the cost of safely processing the toxic waste. See for example the massive PFA problems. Here: https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/tap-water-study-detects-pfas-forever-chemicals-across-us permalink fedilink source parent
[–] chitak166@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago (2 children) Putting a tax on externalities isn’t artificially increasing the cost of the fuel. I'm sorry, what? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago Pollution has a cost to society. Someone has to pay for it. Putting that cost on the polluter is the most efficient way to handle it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] markr@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago For example, a business routinely dumps its toxic waste into a watershed, polluting that watershed and imposing huge costs on all the other users of the watershed that require non-toxic water. As this lowers the 'market price' for the goods produced by the business, the incentive is to always do this rather than pay the cost of safely processing the toxic waste. See for example the massive PFA problems. Here: https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/tap-water-study-detects-pfas-forever-chemicals-across-us permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago Pollution has a cost to society. Someone has to pay for it. Putting that cost on the polluter is the most efficient way to handle it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] markr@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago For example, a business routinely dumps its toxic waste into a watershed, polluting that watershed and imposing huge costs on all the other users of the watershed that require non-toxic water. As this lowers the 'market price' for the goods produced by the business, the incentive is to always do this rather than pay the cost of safely processing the toxic waste. See for example the massive PFA problems. Here: https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/tap-water-study-detects-pfas-forever-chemicals-across-us permalink fedilink source parent
[–] markr@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Allowing fossil fuels to not pay their use costs is artificially decreasing the cost. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chitak166@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago I totally agree, but nations won't understand that because they are modern-day fiefdoms. Their main purpose is to support their ruling class. Funnel as much money as quickly as possible. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] chitak166@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago I totally agree, but nations won't understand that because they are modern-day fiefdoms. Their main purpose is to support their ruling class. Funnel as much money as quickly as possible. permalink fedilink source parent