The human, environmental and economic toll of these subsidies is shocking to the conscience. The authors found that if fossil fuels had been fairly priced in 2015, global carbon emissions would have been slashed by 28 percent. Deaths from fossil fuel-linked air pollution would have dropped by nearly half. For the United States, the $649 billion in fossil fuel subsidies exceeded even the extravagant amount of money the country spent on defense, $599 billion that year. To offer a sense of scale, Pentagon spending accounted for 54 percent of the discretionary federal budget in 2015. In comparison to another important, but less well-funded part of the federal budget, fossil fuel subsidies were nearly 10 times what Congress spent on education. Broken down to an individual level, fossil fuel subsidies cost every man, woman and child in the United States $2,028 that year.
The dome of the U.S. Capitol is seen behind the smoke stacks of the Capitol Power Plant, the only coal-burning power plant in Washington, D.C.
The United States has spent more subsidizing fossil fuels in recent years than it has on defense spending, according to a new report from the International Monetary Fund.
The IMF found that direct and indirect subsidies for coal, oil and gas in the U.S. reached $649 billion in 2015. Pentagon spending that same year was $599 billion.
The study defines “subsidy” very broadly, as many economists do. It accounts for the “differences between actual consumer fuel prices and how much consumers would pay if prices fully reflected supply costs plus the taxes needed to reflect environmental costs” and other damage, including premature deaths from air pollution.
These subsidies are largely invisible to the public, and don’t appear in national budgets. But according the the IMF, the world spent $4.7 trillion — or 6.3 percent of global GDP — in 2015 to subsidize fossil fuel use, a figure it estimated rose to $5.2 trillion in 2017. China, which is heavily reliant on coal and has major air-pollution problems, was the largest subsidizer by far, at $1.4 trillion in 2015. But the U.S. ranked second in the world.
The human, environmental and economic toll of these subsidies is shocking to the conscience. The authors found that if fossil fuels had been fairly priced in 2015, global carbon emissions would have been slashed by 28 percent. Deaths from fossil fuel-linked air pollution would have dropped by nearly half.
Oil, gas and coal companies — and their stooges in public office — have long argued that making consumers pay for the full impacts of fossil fuel use would cripple the economy. The IMF experts call bullshit on this idea, revealing that the world would, in fact, be more prosperous. Eliminating subsidies for fossil fuels would have created global “net economic welfare gains” in 2015 of “more than $1.3 trillion, or 1.7 percent of global GDP,” the study found. (These net gains are “calculated as the benefits from reduced environmental damage and higher revenue minus the losses from consumers facing higher energy prices.”)
The human, environmental and economic toll of these subsidies is shocking to the conscience. The authors found that if fossil fuels had been fairly priced in 2015, global carbon emissions would have been slashed by 28 percent. Deaths from fossil fuel-linked air pollution would have dropped by nearly half.
For the United States, the $649 billion in fossil fuel subsidies exceeded even the extravagant amount of money the country spent on defense. To offer a sense of scale, Pentagon spending accounted for 54 percent of the discretionary federal budget in 2015. In comparison to another important, but less well-funded part of the federal budget, fossil fuel subsidies were nearly 10 times what Congress spent on education. Broken down to an individual level, fossil fuel subsidies cost every man, woman and child in the United States $2,028 that year.
At the opening of the IMF’s spring meetings in April, Managing Director Christine Lagarde laid out the benefits she sees in properly pricing fossil fuels. “The numbers are quite staggering” she said, referring to the savings that could be achieved “fiscally, but also in terms of human life, if there had been the right price on carbon emission as of 2015.”
Lagarde continued to rattle off the benefits to humanity of realizing these savings. “There would be more public spending available to build hospitals, to build roads, to build schools and to support education and health for the people,” she said.
For Lagarde and the IMF, the conclusion was obvious: “We believe that removing fossil fuel subsidies is the right way to go.”
**
Tim DeChristopher excerpt: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/tim-dechristopher-is-a-free-man-we-need-a-movement-that-gets-a-little-bit-out-of-control-82972/
Are you prepared to return to prison in the future?
Definitely. Especially having experienced it and knowing that I can handle it. If the opportunity comes up again to do something impactful, then I’d have to take that opportunity.
A lot of famous activists over the years have spoken about the benefits of prison time. Did you find that to be the case?
There are certainly upsides. They call it “doing time” for a reason. You just have a lot of time on your hands. So I read a lot. A lot of my day consisted of exercising and walking and reading. It was a very reflective environment and very low-stress environment. It kind of naturally lent itself to introspection.
Did you have a lot of conversations about climate and energy issues with other inmates?
I had a lot of conversations more about general social justice issues, about corporate control of our government, how the criminal justice system works.
Looking ahead, it seems activism around climate and energy is moving into a more militant posture. For example, the anti-fracking leader Sandra Steingraber and some of her colleagues in the so-called “Seneca Lake 12” went to jail in New York just as you were being released.
I certainly think the climate movement is going to get more aggressive. There’s been a tremendous amount of movement in the past few years. And with changes like the Sierra Club completely overhauling the way they were operating [in terms of civil disobedience] – that’s a massive shift, and I think those changes will continue. And I think there will also be more kind of bottom-up actions in the future. More things like the tar sands blockade in Texas, things that are not necessarily done by big organizations saying, “This is what you need to do and this is how you’re going to do it.” The grassroots side of the movement is really stepping up in a big way, and that’s been the big shift since 2009. The grassroots side is no longer willing to limit themselves to the directions given by the big green groups and the Washington-centric side of the movement.
The big green groups failed horribly in 2009 with the Waxman-Markey bill. Up until that time, they kind of kept everyone in check by saying, “We know how change happens, we know how to do things in Washington. This is what’s politically feasible.” And they fell on their face. Now a lot of folks are saying, “Well, we tried it your way. Now we’re going to do it our way.”
And your group, Peaceful Uprising, was part of that shift.
Yeah, Peaceful Uprising was forming during that time, largely out of an awareness that what the climate movement was doing wasn’t working and we needed to do something else. It was started largely for the purpose of experimenting, and simply trying something new. Not saying this is the one right way. But saying we need a new way of doing things. And hopefully there will be more experimenting in the climate movement. A movement that gets a little bit out of control – that’s what we need. One that’s more spontaneous, trying more things and is more willing to do things even if it’s not the exact right thing to do, but just because we need to move forward.
Will you stay involved with Peaceful Uprising?
I handed over the reins when I was convicted. I was pretty much out of the picture once I was incarcerated. I am not really in a leadership position there anymore.
Because of the publicity around your trial and incarceration, and now with the documentary, you have achieved a national profile and will be seen as a sort of spokesperson for the movement. Are you comfortable with this new level of fame?
As far as being seen as a speaker and that sort of thing, that’s a role that I’m willing to serve. I kind of ended up in the role as the guy who always talked about civil disobedience just because that was the opening that the movement had in 2008 and 2009. So I sort of ended up in that role by default. Now I’ll try and fill whatever role is needed. And I feel like I naturally look at things from a holistic perspective. I tend to be good at articulating a vision of where we need to go. I feel like I’m well suited for the role that I’m in right now.
