[Stoves] SUBSIDY for new CO2e emissions tops US$150 per ton

[Andrew Heggie]

On Mon, 27 May 2019 at 13:26, Nikhil Desai <pienergy2008 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Kirk H.
>
> You are supposing and pre-supposing too much.

The trouble I find with your posts Nikhil are that they are  so terse
and lacking in any reasoning for your disdain that they can easily be
misinterpreted.


>
> I suggest you find a definition of subsidy in an encyclopedia or dictionary of economics before you lecture me about economics.

This is the nub: the post by Paul  calls what I would consider "non
attributed external costs" a subsidy. This is indeed misleading
because it makes it seem the providers of fossil fuels receive a
payment for doings so. In fact  no money changes hands in the same way
that renewable energy receives direct payments as an incentive (with
which I am entirely sanguine about) but also they do not have to pay
for any perceived damage done by the use of fossil fuels. This has
ever been the case simply because often when a resource is exploited,
in order for a business to make profit from it, the true costs to the
environment are not known. It is only with time that the governance
system can recognise the problem and regulate it. We have seen this
from abandoned mining activities through to waste from nuclear power
plants.

It is known as "the tragedy of the commons"

Not that any of the above relates to [stoves]

Andrew