When It Comes to Government Subsidies, Dirty Energy Still Cleans Up

Via Businessweek

The Oct. 16 presidential town hall debate featured Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama facing off on who was really Mr. Oil or Mr. Gas or Mr. Coal. Neither candidate even mentioned climate change. And while President Obama did refer to renewable production, solar got short shrift—doubtless because of the fracas over now-bankrupt thin-film solar manufacturer Solyndra, which had received loan guarantees as part of the stimulus bill.

That’s a shame, because the reason panel production has moved from such countries as America and Germany to China is because prices have dropped and production has become a commoditized, high-volume enterprise. That may be bad news for Western manufacturing jobs, but it’s great news for the global environment, consumers, and even American energy security. In fact, if we had a level playing field, where neither fossil fuels nor renewable energy received favorable regulatory or subsidy treatment, solar would be increasingly competitive. Mr. Coal would be going home, and Mr. Sun would be coming out to play.

Global subsidies for oil, gas, and coal amounted to $409 billion in 2010—compared with $60 billion for renewable energy that year. Cutting those subsidies would be economically efficient, reduce overall energy consumption, and level the playing field with renewable power. The International Energy Agency suggests that removing fossil fuel subsidies would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by as much as 2.6 gigatonnes a year by 2035. That’s half of what’s required to prevent the planet’s average temperature from increasing by two degrees centigrade or more per year.

[Full article here]

Curated by Phin Upham

Tags: Phin Upham

By in Economics, Politics on October 22, 2012