The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Estimates of fossil fuel subsidies range from $US151 billion to $US235 billion per year globally (in around 2001-2002),<ref name="Riedy">This information comes from ''[http://www.isf.uts.edu.au/whatwedo/proj_energy.html#workingpaper Subsidies that Encourage Fossil Fuel Use in Australia]'', ([http://www.isf.uts.edu.au/publications/CR_2003_paper.pdf PDF version]) Working Paper CR2003/01, January 2003, by Christopher Riedy, PhD Candidate, [Institute for Sustainable Futures] at the [[University of Technology, Sydney]]{{W|University of Technology, Sydney}}.</ref> or 2.5 times more than renewables.<ref name="autoblog">[http://green.autoblog.com/2009/09/19/stury-u-s-subsidises-fossil-fuels-2-5-times-more-than-renewabl/ STUDY: U.S. subsidises fossil fuels 2.5 times more than renewables], Sebastian Blanco, ''Autoblog Green'', Sep 19th 2009.</ref> This is an incentive to use polluting, greenhouse-gas-producing fossil fuels instead of clean [[renewable energy]]. As it has been argued: | Estimates of fossil fuel subsidies range from $US151 billion to $US235 billion per year globally (in around 2001-2002),<ref name="Riedy">This information comes from ''[http://www.isf.uts.edu.au/whatwedo/proj_energy.html#workingpaper Subsidies that Encourage Fossil Fuel Use in Australia]'', ([http://www.isf.uts.edu.au/publications/CR_2003_paper.pdf PDF version]) Working Paper CR2003/01, January 2003, by Christopher Riedy, PhD Candidate, [Institute for Sustainable Futures] at the [[University of Technology, Sydney]]{{W|University of Technology, Sydney}}.</ref> or 2.5 times more than renewables.<ref name="autoblog">[http://green.autoblog.com/2009/09/19/stury-u-s-subsidises-fossil-fuels-2-5-times-more-than-renewabl/ STUDY: U.S. subsidises fossil fuels 2.5 times more than renewables], Sebastian Blanco, ''Autoblog Green'', Sep 19th 2009.</ref> This is an incentive to use polluting, greenhouse-gas-producing fossil fuels instead of clean [[renewable energy]]. As it has been argued: | ||
:<tt>The real problem is that electricity produced in Australia from fossil fuel such as coal is subsidised to the tune of an astounding $8.9 billion, so it is far too cheap. If these subsidies were removed, and a carbon tax applied to polluting energy producers, then | :<tt>The real problem is that electricity produced in Australia from fossil fuel such as coal is subsidised to the tune of an astounding $8.9 billion, so it is far too cheap. If these subsidies were removed, and a carbon tax applied to polluting energy producers, then renewable energy would successfully compete and the free market would steer us in the right direction of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.</tt><ref>These words are by Appropedian [[User:Peter Campbell|Peter Campbell]] in his blog post, [http://petercampbell.blogspot.com/2007/02/remove-89-billion-fossil-fuel-subsidies.html Remove $8.9 billion fossil fuel subsidies to combat climate change], February 20, 2007.</ref> | ||
== Fuel subsidies and social needs == | == Fuel subsidies and social needs == |