Countries like China have to
subsidize oil cost to move the country forward.
Not exact matches
Is the «business as usual» approach —
subsidizing fossil - fuel supply and nuclear energy and large hydro projects, maintaining low energy prices to consumers by keeping environmental and political
costs «external,» propping up
oil supply by every available means — part of the solution or part of the problem?
What I don't understand is why a one time investment of $ 50 - 200 billion worth of solar is too much when our current public / consumer investment in
oil is well over half a trillion each year if you consider both the
cost of the
oil we consume and all the money spent to
subsidize it at home while securing it overseas.
Our navy assumes the prime responsibility for securing the
oil routes from the Middle East, effectively
subsidizing its
cost.
Sorry — but I actually didn't know to what extent Gene thinks that
oil and coal are
subsidized, how he would evaluate the
cost of negative externalities associated with coal and
oil, and whether the prices of coal and
oil truly reflect their
cost.
Even if [geo - engineering] were able to stabilize climate change — which is doubtful... We still would be addicted to imported
oil, still would be
subsidizing terrorism with our gas dollars, still would suffer the
cost and supply traumas that are inevitable with finite resources, still would send our children off to die in resource wars, still would pollute the air and cause respiratory problems for our children, and still would wipe out species, many of them beneficial to us, as we invade their habitat.
And all of these options would spread even more rapidly if we stopped
subsidizing Big
Oil and Coal and put a price on carbon that reflected the true
cost of fossil energy — either through the much - maligned cap - and - trade approach, or through a revenue - neutral tax swap.