Fossil Fuels Get Tons More in Subsidies than Renewable Energy

July 31st, 2010 by Zachary Shahan

[social_buttons]

Fossil fuel subsidies are huge. It is something many of us now know, but which even more people don’t. Thus, it is something we come back to from time to time on here.

A new report out by Bloomberg New Energy Finance shows that governments worldwide spend a ton more on fossil fuels than on renewable energy.

In total, governments around the world spent between $43 and $46 billion on renewable energy and biofuels in 2009. (That doesn’t include indirect support, such as subsidies to corn farmers for ethanol production.)

Sounds like a lot, right? I’m sure seeing that figure would get a lot of anti-government conservatives up in arms and saying, “See! Renewable energy couldn’t survive without government support.”

Sure, not pocket change, unless your talking to those in the fossil fuels industry. They received direct subsidies of $557 billion last year. Quite a bit more support, eh?

I don’t see the anti-government crowd joining the environmental and clean energy crowd and speaking up about this issue, though.

Whether or not renewable energy would out-compete fossil fuels in the energy market if all these subsidies were removed is worthy of plenty more debate, but the bottom line for me is this: isn’t it about time to pull the plug on the fossil fuel subsidies, given that we now conclusively know that we are baking the planet and the long-term costs of global warming far outweigh the short-term supposed costs of switching to renewable energy.

Obama certainly thinks so and is helping the world along. Hopefully we will see this happen sooner rather than too late.

via Technology Review

Like this article? Connect with me on Facebook or Twitter

Photo Credit: alles-schlumpf via flickr

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Tags: fossil fuel, Fossil Fuel Subsidies, government

About the Author

Zachary Shahan spends most of his time here on CleanTechnica as the director/chief editor. Otherwise, he's probably enthusiastically fulfilling his duties as the director/editor of Solar Love, EV Obsession, Planetsave, or Bikocity. Zach is recognized globally as a solar energy, electric car, and wind energy expert. If you would like him to speak at a related conference or event, connect with him via social media. You can connect with Zach on any popular social networking site you like. Links to all of his main social media profiles are on ZacharyShahan.com.

mds

btw We should be able to stop subsiding solar in 5 to 10 years. It will be well below grid parity in the USA sunbelt by then and will be flying fine on it’s own. See graph of price trend for solar at this link:

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/08/test10 “Welcome to the Revolution: Emanuel Sachs and Frank van Mierlo” – August 2010

“The founders of Cambridge MA-based 1366 Technologies discuss their groundbreaking work.”
mds

Zachary,

I agree we should not be subsidizing a mature industries like the fossil fuels, but you’ve made this into a debate about reducing CO2 for climate change reasons. Why not mention reasons for susidizing renewables instead of fossil fuels that we are more likely to agree on in the USA:

1. Our oil money funds terrorism and hostile countries overseas. We need to stop supporting that.

2. Our expenditures on imported oil are bankrupting the country and the swelling deficit is hurting our economy.

3. Solar is dropping in cost at a high rate and will be the cheapest source of power in the near future. The cost of fossil fuels will continue to go up periodicly.

4. We should terminate our sudsidies for fossil fuels. We are already paying too much in Iraq (especially in lives lost) and in the Gulf. These are mature and profitable industries. Why do they need tax payer “help”? They can pay for their own process improvements. No more corporate charity!

5. We should double or triple our spending to “help” solar, storage, nuclear, and extended-range electric vehicles. If we do step 4 first then we will still be reducing federal spending AND all of these are investments in the future which will bring new jobs, new manufacturing, cheaper energy, and as a result SAVINGS.

We need to invest in the future, not the past.

GW is a side argument and a bit of a sideshow to boot. CO2 reduction can come along the ride. It will be the side product of the energy technology changes we need to make anyway! Who cares if AGW is true!

Think about it. Broaden your view past the GW issue.

Mike
LouG

Re: Proof: When I was a child it was “proved” that bumblebees could not fly. Years later it was “proved” that they could. I do not buy the arguement that “… 10 Million Frenchmen can’t be wrong”. It does appear that climate change arguements are strong with some audiences but fail to impress the American taxpayer. To effect change, argue the pocketbook. Oil companies are costing the taxpayer a lot of money – maybe that will awaken votes more that the climate change arguement. LouG
- http://www.zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan
  
  i agree, for sure, with the way to win people over argument, but i also think it won’t take too long before the obviousness of climate change is something you can’t ignore. it is already becoming more and more obvious in everyday life (not just science).
  
  on the fact that science comes to conclusions which are sometimes wrong,.. for sure. but this is not about bumblebees. again, encourage anyone in doubt to check out the links above.
Keith

Yes, fossil fuels are heavily subsidized. And those subsidies should be ended. But fossil fuels are subsidized at a far lower level per unit of energy produced than biofuels, solar or wind energy. Let’s end all energy subsidies and see what happens.
http://www.new-grid.com Mark Raeder

Zach- Great point that I try to make to colleagues all the time. Too often these types of stats don’t sink in until people see them in print.

-Mark
http://islandinthenet.com/ Khürt L Williams

Is there any direct evidence that human behaviour accounts for global warming? Do we know that the planet has never ever in it’s million year history under gone climate change?
- http://www.zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan
  
  yes, it is as conclusive as just about anything gets in science. the two probably most prestigious scientific bodies in the world have backed up the science and said it is beyond time to act on the matter. see: http://planetsave.com/blog/blog/2010/05/07/255-leading-scientists-11-nobel-laureates-write-letter-supporting-climate-scientists-climate-science/ & http://planetsave.com/blog/blog/2010/06/27/the-scientists-do-agree-on-global-warming/ & http://planetsave.com/blog/blog/2010/07/30/global-warming-in-5-minutes-from-a-top-hedge-fund-manager/