Fossil fuels subsidised by $10m a minute, says IMF

Commodity Marketing

Tools

Fossil fuels subsidised by $10m a minute, says IMF

Oct 28, 2017 | 09:03 1 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf

Fossil fuels subsidised by $10m a minute, says IMF

‘Shocking’ revelation finds $5.3tn subsidy estimate for 2015 is greater than the total health spending of all the world’s governments Reply With Quote
Klause's Avatar Oct 28, 2017 | 09:23 2
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf

Fossil fuels subsidised by $10m a minute, says IMF

‘Shocking’ revelation finds $5.3tn subsidy estimate for 2015 is greater than the total health spending of all the world’s governments
I keep saying libertarian government is the way to go but people like you keep screaming at the top of your lungs we need big government.


This is the result.

And no this isn't a liberal or NDP or conservation issue. This is an issue worldwide with all governments because they have gotten themselves far to involved in business and personal dealings. They distort trade they distort financial markets and they distort personal aspirations.


All big government must fall. And it will one way or another. Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2017 | 09:38 3 cc.

Get use to paying for the increasing monthly basic part of the utilities you need for the base load back up required during the down time of unreliable days of wind and solar. It won't matter that you have those renewable energy systems installed if your idea was cost savings. You will just be paying much more than most of us having to have a redundant non environmental system for necessary backup on down days. Some of those down days will be critical for your family, and for your infrastructure's well being.

Pay, pay, pay. Utility system companies don't care that you use their heat, or power. They have got you by upping their "stand by charges" that you can't afford to disconnect. Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2017 | 10:03 4
Quote Originally Posted by Klause View Post
I keep saying libertarian government is the way to go but people like you keep screaming at the top of your lungs we need big government.


This is the result.

And no this isn't a liberal or NDP or conservation issue. This is an issue worldwide with all governments because they have gotten themselves far to involved in business and personal dealings. They distort trade they distort financial markets and they distort personal aspirations.


All big government must fall. And it will one way or another.
A large part of the subsidies calculated are hidden like health and environmental costs. A smaller portion is tax and royalty incentives and direct subsidies.

It seems like in Canada the bigger problem is low royalties. Some of that may be justified because of high production costs but oil companies drove up costs in the boom on their own with out of control development and growth. There is an argument that low royalty rates encouraged companies to grow but not be efficient and cost effective.

How we as owners have some of the lowest royalty rates in the world is the biggest question? It seems like governments have acted in the interests of oil companies and not the citizens. Notley and the NDP seem to be no different on royalties. Stelmach was turned back on this issue. Are we electing corrupt gutless governments? Reply With Quote
Klause's Avatar Oct 28, 2017 | 10:13 5
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
A large part of the subsidies calculated are hidden like health and environmental costs. A smaller portion is tax and royalty incentives and direct subsidies.

It seems like in Canada the bigger problem is low royalties. Some of that may be justified because of high production costs but oil companies drove up costs in the boom on their own with out of control development and growth. There is an argument that low royalty rates encouraged companies to grow but not be efficient and cost effective.

How we as owners have some of the lowest royalty rates in the world is the biggest question? It seems like governments have acted in the interests of oil companies and not the citizens. Notley and the NDP seem to be no different on royalties. Stelmach was turned back on this issue. Are we electing corrupt gutless governments?
I was wondering when you were going to regurgitate that.


We have the cheapest oil on the planet and no infrastructure to move it. You know... Like our ag industry. Made in Canada problem.


It's not production costs... It's the cost of getting it to a marketable position. It's the cost of all the new worthless environmental bullshit.

And watch what I'm saying... We need to protect the environment but a bunch of reports and paperwork and cyclical meetings do not do that. Having to catch slough water from washing a drilling rig in winter is stupid. Just as bad as allowing excessive hogh steam pressures and cheap cement at CNRLs site that blew out hoe many thousands of bbl of crude.


And blamon production costs going up on development is the same as blaming farmers for the urea run up to $1000 a few t
Years ago Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2017 | 10:33 6
Quote Originally Posted by Klause View Post
I was wondering when you were going to regurgitate that.


We have the cheapest oil on the planet and no infrastructure to move it. You know... Like our ag industry. Made in Canada problem.


It's not production costs... It's the cost of getting it to a marketable position. It's the cost of all the new worthless environmental bullshit.

And watch what I'm saying... We need to protect the environment but a bunch of reports and paperwork and cyclical meetings do not do that. Having to catch slough water from washing a drilling rig in winter is stupid. Just as bad as allowing excessive hogh steam pressures and cheap cement at CNRLs site that blew out hoe many thousands of bbl of crude.


And blamon production costs going up on development is the same as blaming farmers for the urea run up to $1000 a few t
Years ago
The cheapest oil in the planet to produce is in the middle east not Canada! Where did you get that idea that Canada has the cheapest oil to produce?

Transportation to market is a cost that every product must bear. Our costs may be higher but that is because of location and distance to markets. How much is this cost relative to all the other costs? Still doesn't negate the fact that Canada has very low royalty rates.

Some types of Canadian oil is discounted but not all. There is significant light oil in Saskatchewan and Alberta which is well hooked into pipelines. Oil is still moving to market and oil companies are still making money. So I think you are out to lunch in suggesting this is the basis of the problem.

Some environmental regs are overkill but there is a long legacy of abandoned equipment, roads, and spills that the oil companies will never pay to clean up. Taxpayers will subsidize them yet again. Not to mention the 3 billion in direct subsidies. Reply With Quote
Klause's Avatar Oct 28, 2017 | 10:44 7
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
The cheapest oil in the planet to produce is in the middle east not Canada! Where did you get that idea that Canada has the cheapest oil to produce?

Transportation to market is a cost that every product must bear. Our costs may be higher but that is because of location and distance to markets. How much is this cost relative to all the other costs? Still doesn't negate the fact that Canada has very low royalty rates.

Some types of Canadian oil is discounted but not all. There is significant light oil in Saskatchewan and Alberta which is well hooked into pipelines. Oil is still moving to market and oil companies are still making money. So I think you are out to lunch in suggesting this is the basis of the problem.

Some environmental regs are overkill but there is a long legacy of abandoned equipment, roads, and spills that the oil companies will never pay to clean up. Taxpayers will subsidize them yet again. Not to mention the 3 billion in direct subsidies.
My phone changed cheapest to cheapest.



Light oik in sask trades at a discount to WTI. Unlike Saudi oil that trades at Brent

What's the spread between Brent and wti? Go look it up


At least there's a semblance of cleanup here... Have you seen what a drilling or production site looks like in the Arab or african countries? You need to go check that out.


And actually it's basic economics... If every cost here is higher you need to lower royalties to make things even.


Even your beloved NDP said the rates were fair keep arguing all you want but your argument doesn't have a toe to stand on. Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2017 | 11:02 8 What are the numbers then?

The only way we will get to the bottom of this is to see what the numbers are and decide if we as owners are getting a fair share?

In one of the articles I have referenced, one said that in the 1970s Canadian governments including Alberta took up to 40% of oil revenue in taxes and royalties and now we are down to 5%. What happened?

Are horizontal wells given a royalty holiday for 3 years when most of the production happens in the first year?

What about the costs in the oil sands versus conventional oil. They are not the same. What is the royalty structure for each?

I will post an article from a former oil industry executive for Shell who argued for more transparency project by project on what industry pays in taxes and royalties. The oil idustry fought hard against this transparency. The mining industry went along. Why? I think it is obvious why.

More to come on this subject later..... Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2017 | 11:04 9 Well howbow dah - the IMF seems to have overlooked the horrendous rate of subsidies paid out to Ontario's wind sector!

In one given month this summer (August, I think it was), almost 80% of the energy from wind turbines was exported to the US at a price of about 1/10 of the cost of production. How many dollars per second does that come to chucky, wanna take a GUESS?

And in the peak usage time during the month of September, wind energy produced a total of .3% of the needed electricity while the rest of the shortfall (that exceeded the capacity of hydro and nuke) had to be imported from Quebec and Manitoba at------a premium.

And they call that sustainable, LOLLLZ!

BTW, chucky, you would be correct if you guessed that green energy costs do NOT include the costs of environmental and health hazards borne by the countries that actually produce the majority of "GREEN" energy components. Nor do they include the future cost of dismantling and disposing of the waste left after the turbines and solar panels are scrap.

Of course, that would demand honesty from the green movement, a characteristic which appears to be in short supply with them.
Last edited by burnt; Oct 28, 2017 at 11:11.
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2017 | 11:14 10 So now that we know that both fossil energy and renewables both receive subsidies, lets see which one is the best investment. Keeping in mind that some of the early subsidies to wind and solar in Ontario were excessive.

Wind and solar are now cost competitive or cheaper in many jurisdictions without subsidies than fossil energy. And we know we still need base load for intermittent renewables so lets not rehash that debate again. So hydro, gas, nuclear can and will provide base load for the near future. Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2017 | 11:22 11
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
So now that we know that both fossil energy and renewables both receive subsidies, lets see which one is the best investment. Keeping in mind that some of the early subsidies to wind and solar in Ontario were excessive.

Wind and solar are now cost competitive or cheaper in many jurisdictions without subsidies than fossil energy. And we know we still need base load for intermittent renewables so lets not rehash that debate again. So hydro, gas, nuclear can and will provide base load for the near future.
And with zer own words, chucky just showed us that because of its unreliability, "green" energy is unsustainable.

And since it cannot stand without conventional supply, it is completely subsidized by the system that chucky wants to portray as bad.

What a remarkable admission, chucky my friend! Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2017 | 11:36 12
Quote Originally Posted by burnt View Post
And with zer own words, chucky just showed us that because of its unreliability, "green" energy is unsustainable.

And since it cannot stand without conventional supply, it is completely subsidized by the system that chucky wants to portray as bad.

What a remarkable admission, chucky my friend!
Intermittent is not the same as unreliable. If solar or wind is producing watts then less coal, gas or hydro is being used. Try to spin it however you want. Here is some proof that renewables are not unreliable:

Germany has been getting up to 85 percent of its electricity from renewable sources on certain sunny, windy days this year. The BEE reported on Sunday the overall share of wind, hydro and solar power in the country's electricity mix climbed to a record 35 percent in the first half.Jul 3, 2017

"The share of renewable electricity use is high in Sweden; hydro, wind, and solar power together accounted for 49.8% of the electricity produced in the country in 2014 (when measured against national electricity consumption, however, this amount rises to 55.5%).

Unreliable?? LOL

This thread is about subsidies to fossil fuel. Are you in favour of subsidizing fossil fuels? Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2017 | 11:59 13 Burnt can you do all your field work on 1 tank of fuel.no ??I guess that would mean fossil fuel in unstanable
The gov is very wasteful with our taxes whereas the oil co are very efficient at hiding there money so no one knows how much they are getting, and with people like burnt, klause sing their praises they just go merrily along living the dream. Reply With Quote
Klause's Avatar Oct 28, 2017 | 12:12 14
Quote Originally Posted by Horse View Post
Burnt can you do all your field work on 1 tank of fuel.no ??I guess that would mean fossil fuel in unstanable
The gov is very wasteful with our taxes whereas the oil co are very efficient at hiding there money so no one knows how much they are getting, and with people like burnt, klause sing their praises they just go merrily along living the dream.

And people like you and Chuck Live in a fantasy world with no idea how economies energy systems factories or business works - and unwilling to learn.

Horse you hate the energy industry and oil workers so much.... I hope you heat your house with wood, use no plastics and farm with horses. Because unless your doing that you are relying on those evil oil field workers and oil companies.


A Saskpower linesman. a GMC auto plant worker. A nurse. A potash mine worker. A plumber. A carpenter. An electrician. A mechanic. They all make the same hourly wage as somebody who works in the patch so give it an effing rest. I'd you can't compete with go-getters that's your problem not theirs. Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2017 | 12:18 15 Actually cc., intermittent is not the same as reliable. So yes, for reliability purposes and security, I am prepared to subsidize fossil fuels over subsidizing intermittent systems, and subsidizing fossil fuel systems concurrently.
Two bills and one pocket leads to "can society afford it". Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2017 | 12:38 16
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
Intermittent is not the same as unreliable. If solar or wind is producing watts then less coal, gas or hydro is being used. Try to spin it however you want. Here is some proof that renewables are not unreliable:

Germany has been getting up to 85 percent of its electricity from renewable sources on certain sunny, windy days this year. The BEE reported on Sunday the overall share of wind, hydro and solar power in the country's electricity mix climbed to a record 35 percent in the first half.Jul 3, 2017

"The share of renewable electricity use is high in Sweden; hydro, wind, and solar power together accounted for 49.8% of the electricity produced in the country in 2014 (when measured against national electricity consumption, however, this amount rises to 55.5%).

Unreliable?? LOL

This thread is about subsidies to fossil fuel. Are you in favour of subsidizing fossil fuels?

Check your privilege there chucky - if you, like some I know, were dependent on a steady supply of electricity to keep their life-giving equipment running, you'd think green energy was damned unreliable, not just intermittent.

My daughter works in a third world medical center where electricity is intermittent - thus, unreliable.

And GUESS what chucky - she sees babies and children die because there is no electricity to run the oxygen generator. It just about breaks her heart and there's no more helpless feeling than watching a baby gasp for breath as it slowly dies because the power is down.

Does that help you to better understand the importance of reliable?

By supporting dependency on unreliable systems, you are advocating for a decline in living standards to third world levels.

And I'm not going to sit back and let some mentally, morally and socially challenged idiots tell me that I have to accept that decline. Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2017 | 19:21 17 Klaus think what you like but no I don't hate oil workers and oil is not my god, but when I see some of the things that goes on in the patch it posses me off same as when I see gov pies away my tax dollars and I don't think I am being unkind just realistic.
Now instead of cooling me names we could discuss some of the wastes I see Mabry you could enlighten me and other oil haters on how the buis are so damn good. Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2017 | 21:14 18 i thought we had lots of gas, burn that when the environmental
choices are not putting out.

eventually the planet will run low on fossil fuels.
we will have to adapt sometime. save the fossil fuels for where they are needed most.
or at least until technology , finds us cleaner sources.

it does not hurt to have both.
it is not either or.
we pretty much have to run with both Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2017 | 22:24 19 Maybe it doesn't help to mention this again....

But chuck's preferred Saskpower 10 MW solar demonstration site at Estevan SK didn't get built on schedule. Could it be he didn't lobby the RM councillors quite hard enough to give up the site it was planned to be built on. And SaskPower simply built the first project someplace else.


Come to think about...I doubt he had enough personal interest to even get involved in local matters. Not enough to gain compared to the much safe and easier fighting the world battles from half way around the world??? . Much the same as his own sit on the fence attitude until it makes enough personal business sense to show "leadership" and jumping in with something a bit bigger than maybe a solar powered calculator.

Talk is really cheap. Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2017 | 22:50 20 And in the interest of clarity; it should also be mentioned again that any "nameplate" green energy production should be drastically derated to account for little details like occasional night time darkness; winter on the prairies (particularly December and January doldrums for solar panels); lack of wind sufficient to turn turbines, the odd hurricane or even 130km wind gust as recently at Moose Jaw etc. etc. Look on Youtube for a windmill's total destruction. Best not to be within a half mile or so; whenever that reoccurring circumstance comes around again.

But never will this cross those minds; or be factored into a crusade with some utopian unattainable goal meant to cripple others; but not necessarily apply to oneself.

Like Manitoba's $25/tonne carbon tax that might raise $250 million for government coffers. Sure sounds like its new wealth for a government that has already has lost sight of returning much to renewable energy initiatives. That wasn't how that "carbon tax" was sold to the public only months ago. Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2017 | 07:11 21 This just in from the Sask Power websites





The Small Power Producers Program has reached the maximum limit of customer generation capacity, providing a total 7.5 MW of power. We are not accepting any additional applications at this time and ask that customers hold any outstanding applications until new programs are available.


Comment: Sask is still not to the stage where we really have a clue of where our future power production will come from. "Someone" else will decide...and just look at insurmountable hoops for any smaller "Independent Power Producer". The big boys are the only ones that will participate in anything meaningful. Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2017 | 08:01 22
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
A large part of the subsidies calculated are hidden like health and environmental costs. A smaller portion is tax and royalty incentives and direct subsidies.

It seems like in Canada the bigger problem is low royalties. Some of that may be justified because of high production costs but oil companies drove up costs in the boom on their own with out of control development and growth. There is an argument that low royalty rates encouraged companies to grow but not be efficient and cost effective.

How we as owners have some of the lowest royalty rates in the world is the biggest question? It seems like governments have acted in the interests of oil companies and not the citizens. Notley and the NDP seem to be no different on royalties. Stelmach was turned back on this issue. Are we electing corrupt gutless governments?
So really a large part of the cost is an arbitrary number which is someone's opinion of the health and environmental costs. What is the human health cost in countries where the only cooking fuel might be dried animal dung and the poor air quality that would create in your home environment.

How about looking at it another way. What is the corresponding benefit to modern society of the existence and use of fossil fuels. Without fertilizer how much less food production would there be in the world? As Burnt points out, how many lives are saved by the existence of dependable sources of power, in our country dependable sources of heat. Here is another question Chuck2, which came first, the solar panel or fossil fuels? My point is you can't build a solar panel or for that matter a windmill without fossil fuels. My point is, does the benefit to modern society of fossil fuels outweigh the theoretical costs? Secondly when you subsidize solar power as an example who gets the benefit? I would say a manufacturing company in China is first in line, second would be the importer, third the installer. When you subsidize fossil fuels more of the benefit would be local. Alberta companies build drilling rigs but don't manufacture solar panels or windmills. Our oil resource is in the ground in Alberta and when it is extracted we do get a royalty. When a solar panel is built we get no royalty. Environmentalists look at only one side of the equation and that is the cost, what about the benefit? Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2017 | 09:43 23 We are finally getting somewhere in that we now acknowledge that fossil energy sources are subsidized directly and indirectly. The bill in Canada is $3 billion in direct subsidies much of which goes to western Canada. There are large hidden subsidy costs as well.

So the question of whether we subsidize or encourage renewables is a matter of policy choice. There are those who lack vision and are willing to argue against new technology for a variety of reasons. Most people are pragmatic and say that if it works and makes economic sense then it is good.

SaskPower is committed to installing significant wind capacity and some solar. They must be viable options for increasing capacity or why would SaskPower be going ahead? Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2017 | 13:05 24 Well things like "flex fuel" powered vehicles..and the already 4 attempts at Tier emissions and DEF solutions are way beyond what are obvious costs.

Those things are just a complete wastes of money.


They are examples of attempts at forcing a solution at any cost. Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2017 | 16:33 25 It is interesting that in 1820 world average life expectancy was 29 years.
In 2015 it was 70.4 years.
World population in 1820 was thought to be around 1 billion. Now it is 7.4 billion.

Did burning hydrocarbons make things worse or better for the world in general? Is there any correlation? Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2017 | 08:29 26
Quote Originally Posted by farming101 View Post
It is interesting that in 1820 world average life expectancy was 29 years.
In 2015 it was 70.4 years.
World population in 1820 was thought to be around 1 billion. Now it is 7.4 billion.

Did burning hydrocarbons make things worse or better for the world in general? Is there any correlation?
In developed countries our high standard of living is largely because of fossil energy. There is little doubt about that.

London England was many times under a deadly cloud of black smog caused by coal used for heating and industry. No doubt coal improved the standard of living in London but it came with a great cost.

"The Great Smog of London, or Great Smog of 1952 sometimes called the Big Smoke,[1] was a severe air-pollution event that affected the British capital of London in December 1952. A period of cold weather, combined with an anticyclone and windless conditions, collected airborne pollutants – mostly arising from the use of coal – to form a thick layer of smog over the city. It lasted from Friday, 5 December to Tuesday, 9 December 1952 and then dispersed quickly when the weather changed.

It caused major disruption by reducing visibility and even penetrating indoor areas, far more severe than previous smog events experienced in the past, called "pea-soupers". Government medical reports in the following weeks, however, estimated that up until 8 December, 4,000 people had died as a direct result of the smog and 100,000 more were made ill by the smog's effects on the human respiratory tract. More recent research suggests that the total number of fatalities was considerably greater, about 12,000.[2]

London had suffered since the 1200s from poor air quality,[3] which worsened in the 1600s,[4][5] but the Great Smog is known to be the worst air-pollution event in the history of the United Kingdom,[6] and the most significant in terms of its effect on environmental research, government regulation, and public awareness of the relationship between air quality and health.[2][4] It led to several changes in practices and regulations, including the Clean Air Act 1956."

Air pollution from burning fossil fuels is still a major problem worldwide. It is one of the hidden costs (subsidy) of fossil energy. We also have climate change which is caused by all the carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. Both these problems can be resolved with reducing fossil energy use.

We will still need fossil energy untill viable, affordable clean energy options replace most of our fossil energy sources. We are in that transition now. Depending on what happens with technological development we may see little loss in our standard of living with a transition away from fossil energy. But burning fossil fuels for ever is not an option and it never was.

In many developing countries clean renewable energy is increasing the standard of living by bringing affordable electricity to many people who have never had it. Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2017 | 09:53 27 It's difficult to grasp the depth of stupidity and desperation that would compel one to use figures from the 1950's to argue against the benefits of using hydrocarbons.

That's pretty low for even you, chucky, and we really haven't come to expect much from you - beyond entertainment value.

And if you were honest, you would support your claim that "clean renewable energy is increasing the standard of living" in some places by adding the fact that there is no alternative in many of those places.

You also omit that fact that to create the equipment needed to produce that energy, some other place and time has has to accept the environmental cost (a subsidy) of producing those necessary, dirty components, and then disposing of the environmentally harmful spent components.

See what I did there chucky - used your own arguments to dismantle your baseless, biased premise LOL.

For the record, last year the IEA reported that 75% of the world's coal-fired plants were HEHE, (High efficiency, low emissions).

And now, the latest advancements out of - are you ready for this - Germany and Denmark are set to become even more efficient through the introduction of ultra-supercritical technology.

If less than half of coal-fired plants adopt this technology, this will move the CO2 output from coal generation to within the range needed to meet specific, reduced CO2 targets worldwide.

GERMANY!!! DENMARK!!! Two countries that chucky and cohorts like to hold up as models of solar and wind enery leaders!

Tell us this, chucky, if their "green energy" models are so good, why are they still developing better tech for coal-fired generation?

So the tech is there and increasingly coming into usage to utilize the 250 year coal supply under the ground in the USA.
Last edited by burnt; Oct 30, 2017 at 09:57.
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2017 | 10:29 28 AGW and CAGW (Catastrophic AGW) are
The WORLD'S GREATEST HOAX

You can take all the CO2, methane and nitrous oxide out of the atmosphere and nothing would change.
We would still have ups and downs in temperatures.
And climate change would go on as it has since the beginning.

Charles Mackay must be laughing his head off in his grave.

He could have added another really large chapter to his book - EXTRAORDINARY POPULAR DELUSIONS and the MADNESS OF CROWDS. Reply With Quote
blackpowder's Avatar Oct 30, 2017 | 11:41 29 "We will still need fossil energy untill viable, affordable clean energy options replace most of our fossil energy sources. We are in that transition now. Depending on what happens with technological development we may see little loss in our standard of living with a transition away from fossil energy. But burning fossil fuels for ever is not an option and it never was."

Chuck makes an intelligent concession. So the argument then is how we manage the transition. So far I believe the argument has been used to increase taxes on everything for general revenue spending. A great sell job. Tailored by socialists for the public that no longer trusts business and wants ever more free stuff without responsibility. It's always been all about the money. Pipelines arent evil, they just cant pay off all the people who think because its under their land they are entitled to a never ending free lunch. When really, it is a duty to allow utilities that benefit all.
On royalties I am not qualified to speak. Nothing stops every citizen from profit sharing by public share ownership.
Not living in Toronto or Ottawa but in buttfk, I can too well imagine what it would look like with no resource jobs overnight. I still think we should shut the valve off for a night though. Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2017 | 20:31 30 What's important to consider is the current state of fossil energy production and consumption has been shaped by direct and indirect subsidies on a global scale.

According to the International Monetary Fund the world total is $5.3 Trillion dollars of annual subsidies which amounts to 6 - 7% of the worlds economic output each year!

So in effect our high standard of living based on non-renewable fossil energy which we have become accustomed to, is highly subsidized especially since most of the worlds fossil energy is consumed in developed industrial countries.

So maybe some of you can stop complaining so much about the measley subsidies given to renewables. I doubt that will happen. LOL Reply With Quote