“Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

So if the United States chooses not to tax petrol and diesel to fund a social program, as do many countries, it constitutes a subsidy?

Don’t be disingenuous, to what fuel tax, and what social program are you referring?

I'm no tax policy expert, and those who are may disagree, but:

I would consider any exemption/redemption from/of an ad valorem general (goods & services) sales tax to be a subsidy.
Any refund of a specific “carbon tax” (if imposed) would also be a subsidy.*
As specific fuel (excise) taxes are generally based upon a “user pay” philosophy (hypothecated for roads, etc), I wouldn’t consider an exemption/redemption on “off-road” (marine, farm, construction/forestry equipment, or home heating) fuel to be a subsidy.

* Carbon taxes are generally considered to be a "user pay" fee.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Don’t be disingenuous, to what fuel tax, and what social program are you referring?
.

* Carbon taxes are generally considered to be a "user pay" fee.

well not exactly .
Just ask the citizens of British Columbia about that carbon tax that the government is collecting and using to subsidise ( by your definitions) the renewables industry in B.C.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

well not exactly ...

Not exactly WHAT?

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Not exactly WHAT?

There seems to be a deep pre-occupation in some people's processing styles with the names of things such that they are rendered unable to appreciate the big picture, instead fixated on terms/names of components that they viscerally react to/don't like.

It's as though you're showing such a person turbine engine for the first time, the person is flummoxed by the sharp components, and sees the "bleeder" valve thing. Instead of just transcending the sharp edges and ominous bleeder valve term they'll just argue that the contraption doesn't make sense, is dangerous...it does has a bleeder valve after all. You can spend all day trying to explain how the engine works, but they'll remain focused on the bleeder valve (sort of like a superstition).

But they will expect to fly coast to coast in just a few hours. Don't let them get you down.

[transmitterdan]

I think user fees are intended to benefit the user. Carbon tax revenue used as a subsidy for alternative energy is a wealth redistribution scheme.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Singularity

There seems to be a deep pre-occupation in some people's processing styles with the names of things such that they are rendered unable to appreciate the big picture, instead fixated on terms/names of components that they viscerally react to/don't like.

For sure. Given the broad definitions that are commonly cited, subsidies are "everywhere" as has already been pointed out. There's the thousands of miles of forest service roads funded with taxpayer money that provide access for mining and logging companies. There's the mortgage interest tax deduction which helps homeowners, but is also a favorite of the home building & real estate lobbies. One can take it as far as one wants and cite the city-maintained sidewalk out in front of your retail grocery store. And one can endlessly debate the utility & appropriateness of the expenditures of public funds which (hopefully) promote the public good but often also necessarily benefit private interests.

But what the NRDC and other environmental groups have been citing for years re: fossil fuels, or so I thought anyway, is more along the lines of a direct subsidy (akin to the ag industry) resulting in the price of fossil fuels being kept artificially low, thereby rendering the price of renewables (even with their own direct subsidies) less competitive. IF this is the case and it's NOT in fact true, then it is quite misleading.

I certainly understand and am sympathetic to the argument about insufficient royalties paid by extractive industries using public lands. I get how the US (and other countries') tax codes are favorable for capital-intensive industries. And I understand (but have no idea how to quantify) the otherwise undeniable "costs" to the environment due to emissions and other pollutants that result from production, distribution & consumption. The latter is mainly focused on CO2, of course, and is one of the principle justifications used by those who advocate for carbon taxes.

But getting back to Singularity's comment above about the subjective use of labels based on more visceral/emotional/personal sensibilities, I suspect the use of the terms "subsidy" and "tax breaks" when it comes to the oil & gas industries is designed to appeal to this sort of audience as opposed to those who think about such terminology in more concrete economic terms. Like so much other terminology repeatedly used these days to sell all sorts of politicized agendas, "subsidies" & "tax breaks" have become associated with "special interests" and political corruption, which can and are used to demonize a variety of interests who are viewed as obstacles to the message being pitched.

In my mind anyway, "subsidies" as used in these cited NRDC articles, etc., should be ones which single out the fossil fuel industry for benefits which lower the costs of production to an extent which impacts the ultimate cost to the consumer. And "tax breaks" should be those which are otherwise not applied to other, capital-intensive industries who benefit from large deductions. In other words, what the NRDC and other advocates are at least implying is that oil & gas cos. are being unfairly singled out for favorable treatment at taxpayer expense. Certainly a good selling point emotionally and therefore politically, but if this is NOT the case then the use of this terminology is propagating the false impression that the large disparity in costs between fossil fuels vs. renewables is the result of govt. unfairly choosing sides, as opposed to the more obvious reality that there remains a wide divergence in the two types of energies' respective costs & efficiencies.

But harkening back to another one of Gord's interesting threads, I could be wrong about the nature of these subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

I think user fees are intended to benefit the user. Carbon tax revenue used as a subsidy for alternative energy is a wealth redistribution scheme.

In large part because the former is quantifiable (what's it cost the taxpayers to send the inspector out to Senor's place to approve the work?). For a carbon tax to be more widely accepted it has to be pitched more honestly.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Exile

...I suspect the use of the terms "subsidy" and "tax breaks" when it comes to [XYZ] is designed to appeal to this sort of audience as opposed to those who think about such terminology in more concrete economic terms....

1) I don't think that the narratives are designed in this manner...rather the narratives have evolved in this manner.

2) Peer-reviewed research otherwise demonstrates that the fundamental point made is true...more specifically when the disgust sensation can be elicited then you get a stereotypical response that can be, actually, correlated to one of the two dominant political perspectives in any country.

As another thread running here shows....some people are digusted with the notion of food scraps going into the marina water. To support the notion that this practice is bad, they give vague reference to plausible (but perhaps unlikely) science principles at play, while otherwise citing an authority figure (the law) as evidence that the practice is bad. At the same time, others seem to think more precisely about variables over space and time and are less prone to accepting paradigms. If you want, you can google the heck out of this subject and see countless examples of how this plays out.

3) Otherwise 100% of taxes, 100% of subsidies, 100% of tax breaks, 100% of user fees are wealth redistribution systems. All of them. This is the basis of governance. If/when people cite these things instead of the underlying conflict...it tends to tell me that they don't understand the underlying conflict but do know how to toss things out for discussion so as to call on like-minded folks to counter the threat (dog whistle thing).

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

In large part because the former is quantifiable (what's it cost the taxpayers to send the inspector out to Senor's place to approve the work?). For a carbon tax to be more widely accepted it has to be pitched more honestly.

then there was I 732 here in my state of Washington which was an attempt to place a $25.00 a ton carbon tax. ( increasing by 3.5% per year with no listed maximum )

this is the quoted language off of their faq page
A carbon tax is a tax on fossil fuels based on the amount of carbon dioxide produced when those fossil fuels are burned. A $25 carbon tax would raise the price of gasoline by about 25 cents per gallon and the price of coal-fired electricity by about 2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour. Electricity from natural gas is cleaner by half and so would face a tax rate only half as large. Renewables like hydro, wind, and solar are carbon-free and would pay no tax. This will help make clean energy even more appealing than it is today.


So it looks to me that a carbon tax could be Interpreted as a renewables subsidy.

[Silverbullet]

Im driving down the road one day listening to "THE BIG SHOW" and someone commented, "85% of all data reported is incorrect." I knew there was something else there but it didnt hit me for two days at which time I came completely unglued. (Do you get it?) If 85% of all data reported is incorrect, then there is an 85% chance the report of the 85% of that data being incorrect.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

So it looks to me that a carbon tax could be Interpreted as a renewables subsidy.

No question. It would operate to make renewables more attractive cost-wise, and so benefit renewable energy interests. But that's the consequence of almost any type of subsidy that is designed for at least "stated" public purposes, in this case reducing fossil fuel emissions. But it might be preferable to a govt. actually selecting which cos. within a particular industry to provide taxpayer money to directly, all ostensibly for a well meaning (and sounding) "stated" public purpose. But we are discussing the misleading role of labels, slogans & terminology here, so maybe I should rephrase my characterization of both types of subsidies as "investments."

With so-called carbon taxes and all the various & sundry permutations THAT "means," I think it's all that much more imperative to be mindful of the ever-present devils immersed in all the details.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

No question. It would operate to make renewables more attractive cost-wise, and so benefit renewable energy interests. But that's the consequence of almost any type of subsidy that is designed for at least "stated" public purposes, in this case reducing fossil fuel emissions. But it might be preferable to a govt. actually selecting which cos. within a particular industry to provide taxpayer money to directly, all ostensibly for a well meaning (and sounding) "stated" public purpose. But we are discussing the misleading role of labels, slogans & terminology here, so maybe I should rephrase my characterization of both types of subsidies as "investments."

With so-called carbon taxes and all the various & sundry permutations THAT "means," I think it's all that much more imperative to be mindful of the ever-present devils immersed in all the details.

there was another one i1631
Would have imposed a $15 per ton fee on carbon emissions and increasing by $2 a year in till 2035 .
Revenues from the tax -- estimated to reach $1 billion annually by 2023 -- would have been devoted to renewable energy projects
That is definitely a subsidy

Thankfully we told the gov to shove it.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

there was another one i1631
Would have imposed a $15 per ton fee on carbon emissions and increasing by $2 a year in till 2035 .
Revenues from the tax -- estimated to reach $1 billion annually by 2023 -- would have been devoted to renewable energy projects
That is definitely a subsidy

Thankfully we told the gov to shove it.

I'm sure you know this, but whether it's a subsidy or not isn't generally the best measure of its merits/demerits.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by newhaul

then there was I 732 here in my state of Washington which was an attempt to place a $25.00 a ton carbon tax. ( increasing by 3.5% per year with no listed maximum )

this is the quoted language off of their faq page
A carbon tax is a tax on fossil fuels based on the amount of carbon dioxide produced when those fossil fuels are burned. A $25 carbon tax would raise the price of gasoline by about 25 cents per gallon and the price of coal-fired electricity by about 2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour. Electricity from natural gas is cleaner by half and so would face a tax rate only half as large. Renewables like hydro, wind, and solar are carbon-free and would pay no tax. This will help make clean energy even more appealing than it is today.


So it looks to me that a carbon tax could be Interpreted as a renewables subsidy.

A subsidy is when government GIVES out money.
The carbon tax is simply another tax.

It's simply a "negative non subsidy".

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

A subsidy is when government GIVES out money.
The carbon tax is simply another tax.

It's simply a "negative non subsidy".

take money from fossil fuel and give it to renewables . Seems like actually a sneaky way of double dipping