,
9 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
Perhaps obvious to climate nerds out there, but #IMF #fossilfuel #subsidies report has important implications for #carbonpricing THREAD
It’s VERY hard to take #carbonpricing seriously when #fossilfuel #subsidies create a countervailing negative price. /1
Beyond obvious enviro and econ damage, subsidies do not bode well for sub-national and regional pricing policies. Optimists point to local/subnat’l initiatives as sources of bottom-up approaches. Some of these will be limited by idiot federal policies like #subsidies /2
This further underscores a point I’ve made about the challenges of linking carbon pricing schemes. Best case scenario: it’s very messy. Worst case: it doesn’t work and lulls us into thinking we’re doing something when we’re barely tinkering at the margins. nature.com/news/don-t-lin…
Beyond policy, subsidies are a *political* tool that perpetuate entrenched interests who will continue to stymie progress on decarbonization /4
This is doubly true in instances where those regulated by carbon pricing receive generous baselines or other preferential treatment. Essentially, they’re getting two sets of handouts – for negative and positive carbon pricing. /5
This hypocrisy is especially rife in advanced nations – some of the biggest subsidizers also have carbon pricing policies. /6 i2.wp.com/www.climate-tr…
Mind you, these are G20 members who have promised every year FOR THE LAST DECADE to phase out FF subsidies, most recently last year in Argentina. /7 g20.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/…
Bottom line: #fossilfuel subsidies are dumb. But when taken together with #carbonpricing policies, they’re even worse. Media likes to focus on contention around #carbonpricing, but we should focus instead on the politics of industrial policies like those in the #GreenNewDeal FIN
