[smt88]

Lots of high-paying jobs would immediately be eliminated. Millions of people driving gas cars would see prices go up a lot. Airline tickets, plastic products... the prices of everything would go up.

There would also be big national security concerns. It's hard to hold, for example, Saudi Arabia accountable for misdeeds when your economy depends on them.

For the record, I think the US should do this gradually. Some of the money could go toward welfare and unemployment benefits for people negatively impacted by job losses or price increases.

[gm_fan_boi]

Let's not forget all the senior citizens who rely on income from investments in fossil fuel companies, this includes most of the parents of the under 45 who like to say, "screw the oil companies"

[justin66]

The companies that stand to gain are likely to be publicly traded as well.

[Ambele]

If those senior citizens have index funds or mutual funds, they'll be fine because the indexes automatically rebalance to the companies with the highest market caps.

[ragebol]

Or sell those assets now before they depreciate: divest from fossil fuel and invest in in sustainable energy.

[rhinoceraptor]

Sell them to who?

[Ambele]

Someone who likes to buy small-cap-value companies. This person could be domestic or overseas and might not care about US corporate negative externalities; just the dividend yield.

[acollins1331]

They can literally put in a sell order at any time

[gm_fan_boi]

If they are self directed, yes.

[shaftway]

Wouldn't taxes be able to come down by a commensurate amount?

Isn't fossil fuel subsidies just a way to spread the cost from those who consume the fuel (directly or indirectly) to those who don't?

[goatinaboat]

Wouldn't taxes be able to come down by a commensurate amount?

No, because the “subsidy” is just that some people feel that taxes on fuel should be higher. Nowhere is the price of fuel less than the cost of extracting and refining it, which it would be if it were a true subsidy.

[gizmo686]

No, there are explicit subsidies given to fossil fuels. https://www.treasury.gov/open/Documents/USA%20FFSR%20progres...

[reitzensteinm]

While true, those numbers are tiny. When people talk about fossil fuel subsidies, they're usually talking about the externalities not being accounted for, or the cost of wars/military.

[mywittyname]

Probably not; the USA runs a huge deficit.

[Ambele]

Taxes could go down by the same amount as the subsidies for all of the tax-payers, corporations, and investors involved allowing for a positive overall return to the economy if you include all of the inefficiencies avoided by having our government involved in these subsidies.

[A2017U1]

> the prices of everything would go up

Sounds like what every Central Bank in the developed world is desperately trying to achieve.

[sandino]

Okay, so human beings would be negatively impacted (to some degree).

But how would you assess impact on the climate crisis (per se)?