[adventured]

Where are you getting the $420 billion per year in oil subsidies? US oil companies pay among the highest corporate income tax rates on the planet. Their taxes far exceed subsidies they receive.

$600 billion by comparison is the size of the US military and $420 billion is larger than the sales of Exxon + Chevron + Conoco + Occidental + EOG + Anadarko combined. It's an absurd claim.

[dmix]

I was quoting Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

> The study found that "China was the biggest subsidizer in 2013 ($1.8 trillion), followed by the United States ($0.6 trillion), and Russia, the European Union, and India (each with about $0.3 trillion)."

> The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period.

Apologies, it seems fossil fuels get 70%. Not just oil.

[free652]

>A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[28] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period

Over 60 years.

[dmix]

No, per year. Specifically $606 billion in 2013.

The cited study from the sentence I referenced in my comment:

> Estimated subsidies are $4.9 trillion worldwide in 2013 and $5.3 trillion in 2015 (6.5% of global GDP in both years).

> In terms of countries, China had the largest absolute post-tax subsidies in 2013 ($1,844 billion or 19.5% of GDP), followed by United States ($606 billion or 3.6% of GDP), Russia ($318 billion or 15.2% of GDP), European Union ($295 billion), India ($269 billion or 14.3% of GDP), Japan ($142 billion or 2.9% of GDP), Saudi Arabia ($129 billion or 17.2% of GDP) and Iran ($118 billion or 32.2% of GDP).

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16...

[free652]

Here is the study that you quoted, it's total.

http://www.misi-net.com/publications/NEI-1011.pdf

edit:

The other study that you provided includes global warming and air pollution as a "subsidy", no offense but that's pushing the definition.

http://imgur.com/a/hNm6a

[kevinnk]

I'm pretty sure you're correct and those numbers are total since 1950. However, the study does seem confusingly worded - in the footnote on page 1 it says:

"All estimates quoted are in constant 2010 dollars, unless otherwise noted, and refer to actual expenditures in the relevant fiscal year, rounded to the nearest billion"

At least to me that reads like "all estimates refer to expenditures from the relevant fiscal year only". However, they later quote the same numbers as being "total spending since 1950". Am I just missing an obvious interpretation for the footnote?

[NamTaf]

I think you are. I interpret that as the estimates for each year are quoted in 2010 dollars unless noted and that those estimates (that is, the ones for each year) refer to actuals in each of those years. Then they are summed to produce the $600b.

"from the relevant fiscal year" implies that each value relates to a corresponding fiscal year. Your addition of 'only' is redundant.

[zachwood]

Looks like they found that number here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#Impact_of_fos...