Sentences with phrase «fuel subsidy so»

Lending his voice to the development, Godswill Akpabio, senate minority leader, noted that the new government's change campaign should have necessitated a total removal of fuel subsidy so that the market forces would determine the price of product.

Later this week, I will work with my colleagues at the G - 20 to phase out fossil fuel subsidies so that we can better address our climate challenge.

Not exact matches

In September 2016, the G20 countries re-affirmed their 2009 commitment (at the G20 Leaders» Summit) to phase out fossil fuel subsidies and many national governments are using today's low oil prices as an opportunity to do so.

Intrinsic subsidies to fossil fuel would be large — one doubts anywhere near so small as the $ 500m figure — but also controversial.

7/21/17 — In the next decade or so, electric vehicles (EVs) will become cheaper than conventional fossil - fueled cars and will outsell them even without government subsidies, says a New York Times editorial.

And what the OECD claims is a «subsidy» in the form of reduced rates of VAT on fuel and power in the UK is in fact a consumer benefit that is equally applied to green energy — it just happens that less of it is produced, so it draws less subsidy.

Mandates and subsidies for fossil - fuel intensive biofuels such as corn - derived ethanol are so large that eliminating or reducing them would almost certainly do more than a carbon tax to curb these fuels» artificial price advantage.

«The resolution as it passed it would apply not only to all vehicle types but it would also apply to subsidies and mandates of all fuel types, so that would include, for example, the renewable fuel standard,» Ebell, who chaired President Trump's EPA transition team, said.

He also continued on the theme of reforming fossil fuel subsidies, so that the cost of fossil fuels can «better reflect the costs they impose on taxpayers and our planet», and investing in the clean technology of the future, particularly in the coal states that could suffer as their power plants shut down.

He also pointed out that the research itself is pretty old now, and so even if the fossil fuel parts could be identified from the rest of the «perverse subsidies» — it wouldn't be very up to date.

The IEA's WEO calculations exclude potential subsidies and fuel taxes and so these estimates could very well be on the conservative side.

The level of denial exhibited in this report is extremely damaging to the efforts of fossil fuel subsidy reform, especially since the German government had been so vocal in advocating for effective carbon pricing and ending subsidies.

Dale clarified it in another post when he said that ``... the FIT itself is funded by energy bills — so it's a subsidy from all users to a few — that's OK if it all goes to the fuel poor as you describe — but in practice a lot of it (most of it) goes to the fuel rich — increasing the bills of the fuel poor.

So in that time period, the US favored «subsidies» to fossil fuels (including the Strategic Oil Reserve, which I guess will count as a negative subsidy this year) over renewables by a ratio of ~ 2.5:1.

Even if we take your wildly baseless «ratio of energy from fossil fuel to energy from renewables,» (as it assumes a baseline that excludes so many non-market renewable) of 100, we still reverse the ratio substantially on your mistaken subsidy figures alone.

And a concern of removing fossil fuel subsidies — particularly in the current political climate of worries about oil imports — is that this can work against so - called «energy security» (some have therefore suggested the addition of an «oil import fee»).

Per unit of energy produced in the USA, renewable energy already gets 25 times the subsidy that fossil fuels receive, so cutting fossil fuel subsidies won't fundamentally change energy economics.

On the other hand, India doesn't have much of an oil industry to lose, so low prices have brought economic benefits, even easing the burden on the population of removing government transportation fuel subsidies.

And, well, how many schools could be renovated, roads repaired, policemen hired, and other public services provided with the tax subsidies that the ever - so impoverished fossil fuel industries are pocketing?

So what we are really saying as scientists and technologists is that, how can we expect to have all the technological solutions in place — every single component — when there simply isn't a market demand for it; when the government is funding subsidies 10 to 1 in terms of fossil fuels to renewables.

As I pointed out to Gary, solar is subsidized more per unit than fossil fuels are, so if removing subsidies for both were to happen, solar would be impacted to a greater degree.

However I agree with letting the market determine power prices so would advocate removal of subsidies of all energy sources i.e. US fossil fuel http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

So to pull the curtain back a little: The IMF thinks that a failure to add an additional layer of tax on gasoline and diesel amounts to a subsidy to fossil fuel companies, while at the same time ignoring the taxes that are currently collected at the pump.

Professor Edenhofer said: «It is a dirty lie that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels have so far come with no cost — they cost us human health, damage to our climate, and billions of dollars in subsidies worldwide.

(For fossil fuels, tax assessed preferably at the mine or well, to reduce paperwork and make enforcement efficient (as opposed to the exhaust pipe)-- but then a compensating credit for fossil C used in materials unlikely to be oxidized, etc, with compensating tariff / subsidy for trade between nations with differing policies; attempt at least approximate CO2eq tax for other sources so as to not distort the market (don't encourage too much deforestation for biofuels, don't forget about cement production, don't forget about cows, etc.)-RRB-.

Let's also not forget that subsidies going to fossil fuels dwarf those going to renewables, so any true transition to a level playing field should see those funds cut too.

You have to pinch yourself when the government announces another new subsidy for the fossil fuel industry, not only because they so recently said that renewable energy should stand on its own two feet, but also because they're announcing this just days before the latest climate conference in Paris — at which world leaders will gather to try and hammer out a global deal to reduce emissions.

So fossil fuel reform seems to be a case of simple political will: government can use other forms of subsidy to ensure social cohesion, companies want a free market, and politicians — certainly the ones with loud voices in the USA — want government out of the subsidy business.

If that results in misallocation of resources we should review the subsidies, but at the moment they appear to be fixing some of the current misallocation of resources towards fossil fuels, so they're a good thing.

Congress should first reform its suite of deployment subsidies to «better drive and reward innovation» so that clean tech segments can become cost - competitive with fossil fuels without subsidy «as soon as possible,» Jenkins said.