[phire]

It's important to note that energy subsidies aren't inherently pro fossil fuels or anti green energy.

Their only priority is to ensure that a given percentage of energy demand is met by domestic (or closely allied) suppliers. There are both National Security and Economic reasons for this. Not only does it prevent war by insuring no enemy thinks they can quickly force a surrender by cutting off energy supplied, but it also helps guard against things such as the OPEC oil shock of the '70s.

What energy subsidies are trying to avoid is a scenario where the majority of fossil fuel is produced in the countries where it is cheapest, such as the Middle East or Russia. Such a scenario would give those countries a massive amount of economic power.

If you want energy subsidies to not go to fossil fuels, you simply need to eliminate demand for fossil fuels.

As fossil fuel demand drops, the energy subsidies assigned to them will also drop. They are only trying to maintain a domestic percentage. So cut domestic demand by 50% and fossil fuel subsidies will also drop by roughly half.

[AtlasBarfed]

But subsidies could have pushed certainly wind generation 50 years ago, rather than push oil and require a huge navy and military to secure our overseas oil interests.

Solar probably could have been pushed substantially as well with better research funding.

Battery storage probably could have been pushed for practical EVs earlier as well.

Sure there's a lot of monday morning quarterbacking there, but we are in a major hole with GHG levels in the atmosphere, and our oil and gas friendly policies over the last century are a major cause.