Why your taxes pay to make climate change worse: Don Pittis

If you are a climate change skeptic,stop reading now because this will make no sense.

But for everybody else, there is another thingthat won't make sense: while talking of cutting back on greenhouse gases, we're giving tax money to the people who produce them.

• U.S., China agree to cut greenhouse gases in bid to spur others to join
• Greenhouse gas emissions drop brings EU near 2020 target
• Does Canada have falling carbon emissions in a growing economy?

Just as the biggest carbon producers China and the United States announce a joint commitmentto battle climate change, a new report shows governments around the world are actually spending billions in taxpayer cash that effectively makesthe problem worse.

In the run-up to this week's G20 meeting in Brisbane, Australia, the London-based Overseas Development Institute has released a report showing that G20 countries spend $88 billion US a year subsidizing fossil fuel exploration.

That's just the G20. And that's just the subsidy for exploration.

There are many ways of calculating greenhouse gas subsidies. And the organizations that try to track down those figuressay that they are often stonewalled by governments embarrassed about spending all that tax money to do the exact opposite of what they claim to be doing.

In a report last year, the IMF put global subsidies at a staggering $2 trillion USand said that without those subsidies, greenhouse gas production would plunge 13 per cent.

The IMF figures include costs of burning fossil fuelsthat governments don't, such as the impact ofroad congestion, the health effects of (non-carbon)pollutionand traffic accidents. So it is easy to say that the IMF's$2 trillion figure is wildly inflated by normal accounting methods.

Subverting the market

By the IMF'scalculation, Canada is spending $34 billion on subsidies.

However, even more conservative estimatesshow that the subsidies are in the hundreds of millions of dollars. And that is while Joe Oliver is complaining that falling oil prices are cutting into his budget.

Despite saying one thing while doing another, the annoying part for people like me who believe that the forces of economics are beneficial is that these multibillion-dollar global subsidies subvert the market. They givefalse signals about how much we as a society should invest in an industry that many sayis endangering the health of our planet.

By way of explanation, itmight help to look at thetwo main justificationsfor fossil fuel subsidies.

The most common kind in poor countries issometimes seenas a vote-getter or perhaps as a genuine attempt to lighten the load on citizens.

It is a subsidy on the price of fuel at the pump. According to a report this year in the Washington Post, gasoline was selling in Venezuelaatfive cents per U.S.gallon,which converts to something near a penny a litre.

Oil-producing countries like Venezuela, Iran (47 cents/gallon) and Kuwait (88 cents/gallon) might be seen as using low fuel prices to share the national oil wealth.

But for others like Egyptand Pakistan, it is a pure transfer of cash from taxpayers in generalto consumers of fuel.

Trying to be better off

For consumers, the ideal economic scenario is being able to spend their limited amounts of money in the wisest ways possible. The various prices of things they can choose from helpthem select the basket of goods that leave them best off.

Witha subsidy of about $5 a gallon,Venezuelans are making choices that might not be in their best interests.

You get into the absurd situation where it is cheaper to drive kilometres to someone's house than to call them on a payphone.

In Egypt, a country that spends a fortune importing oil, peoplewill still be filling gasoline generators when it is far cheaper to use thecountry's intense sun to make electricity withsolar panels.

In richer countries, including the U.S. and Canada, subsidies tend to go to the companies producing the fuel. Thus the reference to the $88 billion spent by the G20 countries on exploration.

The tradition in those countriesis that governments often give handouts or tax breaks to businesses to encourage them to keep jobs at home or develop facilities in underdeveloped areas.

But the distorting effect on prices is ultimately similar to the consumer subsidies in poor countries. More oil is produced than current prices would demand. Companies invest money that would better be invested elsewhere. Both tend to drive prices down, encouraging people to buy more than they would have otherwise.

'Bad economics'

Even without climate change, both price and exploration subsidies make for bad economics. But while governments insist they are trying to get greenhouse gases under control, subsidies "marry bad economics with potentially disastrous consequences for climate change," says the ODI.

Not only that, they saythe same money investedin renewable energygives governments a bigger bang for the taxpayers' buck.

"Every U.S. dollar in renewable energy subsidies attracts $2.50 in investment, whilst a dollar in fossil fuels subsidies only draws $1.30of investment," says the ODI in a summary of theirreport.

By itself, ending fossil fuel subsidies will not end theclimate change crisis.

But taxing us and spending the money to distort markets in favour of fossil fuels only aggravates theproblem.

It is worse than doing nothing.