Clearly, \”neo-liberal\” isn\’t strong enough now:
Václav Klaus, the ultra-neoliberal Czech president,
Ultra-neoliberal now, eh?
But the sleight of hand is here:
Worldwide, subsidies for fossil fuels are 12 times greater than subsidies for renewable energy. Many of the most generous handouts are awarded by rightwing governments (think of the money lavished on the oil industry under George Bush).
Umm, no, you see it\’s not money lavished on the oil industry by George Bush that makes up those fossil fuel subsidies. Very much not so actually.
I can’t find the full IEA report but I have found the slides used to illustrate it. Here.
Last page. Who are the subsidisers? In order, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, China, Egypt, Venezuela, Mexico, Indonesia, Argentina, Iraq, Uzbekistan, UAE and so on….
Absolutely none of the advanced industrialised countries are providing sufficient subsidy to even make the list. Only 8 of the G-20 do ….and none of the rich ones.
So, you see what they’ve done? They’ve compared what poor countries do to subsidise fossil fuels with what rich countries do to subsidise renewables….and yet left us with the impression that it’s all rich countries doing both.
Think for a moment: they’re comparing $50 billion with $550 billion, as if it is therefore obvious that we (the US, UK etc) should therefore both reduce fossil subsidies and increase renewables. But what on earth does Iran subsidising petrol have to do with how much the UK or Germany should subsidise solar PV?
Impressively done George but horribly misleading. Iran is the biggest subsidy merchant, over $100 billion a year. What\’s that got to do with Shrub?