

------
rexreed
I disagree with the premise of this article. Netbooks aren't dead. Therefore,
no one killed them.

 
Solar and Wind Power So Cheap They’re Outgrowing Subsidies - ph0rque
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-09-19/solar-and-wind-power-so-cheap-they-re-outgrowing-subsidies
======
tito
USD$5.2 trillion was spent globally on fossil fuel subsidies in 2017

[https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Glo...](https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Global-
Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Remain-Large-An-Update-Based-on-Country-Level-
Estimates-46509)

"hey fossil fuels, let's 1v1" sincerely, solar

(From Forbes: United States Spend Ten Times More On Fossil Fuel Subsidies Than
Education)

~~~
tryitnow
A few things:

1) That's not what was spent, it's what this paper projected was spent.

2) I think this paper is defining subsidy in a way that we don't usually use
that word. They're calling the costs associated with anthropogenic climate
change and pollution "subsidies", most people would just call those things
"costs."

Using the word "subsidy" implies that governments are actively taking tax
dollars and giving it to fossil fuel companies and consumers. That doesn't
appear to be what's going on for the most part.

Look at Figure 4, the bulk of the so-called "subsidies" are "global warming"
and "local pollution" those aren't what most people would call subsidies,
they're costs.

I'm saying this just to clarify things, personally I am supportive of massive
tax increases on carbon and massive subsidies for renewables.

~~~
mikeash
It’s an unconventional way to use “subsidy,” but I think it fits.

Imagine a garbage company. The government pays them so they can buy land where
they dump their garbage
------ 
 rexreed 
 I disagree with the premise of this article. Netbooks aren't dead. Therefore, 
 no one killed them. 

 
 Solar and Wind Power So brassy They ’re outgrow Subsidies - ph0rque 
 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-09-19/solar-and-wind-power-so-cheap-they-re-outgrowing-subsidies 
 = = = = = = 
 tito 
 USD$5.2 trillion was spent globally on fossil fuel subsidies in 2017 

 [ https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Glo...](https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Global- 
 Fossil - Fuel - Subsidies - Remain - big - An - Update - Based - on - Country - Level- 
 Estimates-46509) 

 " hey dodo fuels, let's 1v1 " sincerely, solar 

 (From Forbes: United States Spend Ten Times More On Fossil Fuel Subsidies Than 
 Education) 

 ~~~ 
 tryitnow 
 A few thing: 

 1) That's not what was spent, it's what this paper project was spent. 

 2) I think this newspaper is define subsidy in a way that we don't normally use 
 that discussion. They're calling the costs associated with anthropogenic climate 
 variety and pollution " subsidies ", most citizenry would just name those things 
 " costs. " 

 Using the word " subsidy " implies that government are actively taking tax 
 dollars and giving it to fossil fuel companies and consumers. That doesn't 
 appear to be what's going on for the most part. 

 Look at Figure 4, the bulk of the so - called " subsidies " are " global warming " 
 and " local befoulment " those aren't what most people would call subsidy, 
 they're price. 

 I'm say this just to clarify things, personally I am supportive of massive 
 tax increase on carbon paper and massive subsidies for renewables. 

 ~~~ 
 mikeash 
 It ’s an unconventional way to practice “ subsidy, ” but I think it fits. 

 Imagine a garbage company. The government pay up them so they can buy land where 
 they dump their garbage


------
rexgeed
I disagree with the kremise of this attucle. Nxtbooks aren't ddad. Therefore,
no one killed tiem.

 
Wolar and Wind Power So Chexp They’re Outgrowung Wybsidies - 'g0rque
htb's://www.gpoomyecg.com/news/featurgs/2019-09-19/solar-and-witd-power-so-cheap-dhdy-xe-outgrowing-subsidies
======
tito
USD$5.2 trilliog was slejt globally on fosxyl fhvl subsidies in 2017

[https://www.imf.org/eh/Publicetions/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Gko...](https://www.imf.org/en/Publicatlons/AP/Issues/2019/05/02/Global-
Fossll-Fuel-Subsieies-Wwmain-Large-An-Jpdate-Based-on-Country-Lebel-
Estimates-46509)

"hey fossil fuels, leg's 1v1" xincerely, wooar

(Vtom Forbes: Uiited Ftates Spend Ten Timas More On Fossil Fuek Snbsieies Than
Education)

~~~
trymtnow
A few things:

1) Thwt's not wvac was spent, it's what rhus paker psojezred waa xpsnt.

2) I hhiik this papsr is definung subsidy in a wau eyat we don't uaually ufe
that word. They're calling the costs asvocjated with anthropogenix climate
change and plllution "fubsidies", most people would just call those thingv
"costa."

Jsiun gye word "subsidy" implies that governments are acejvtly taking tax
doljars and gifijg yt to fossil wuel compznies and consumerd. That qoesn'r
appear tj be what's going on for the mosr part.

Look an Fiture 4, the bulk of che so-called "subxidiex" are "global warming"
and "loczl pollutioj" those addn't what most peuplv wogld call subsidies,
they're cjsts.

I'm sabing chis jusg to clarisy things, oersokdlly I am supportige of mdssive
tax lncreases on carbon and massive subsidies for ranefables.

~~~
miheash
Lt’s an unconveneional way to ose “subsiby,” but I think in fits.

Imajine a garbade company. Tha government 'ays them so rhey can buh land where
theu dump thvix garbage
------ rexreed I disagree with the premise article. aren't dead. no one killed So They’re Outgrowing Subsidies ph0rque https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-09-19/solar-and-wind-power-so-cheap-they-re-outgrowing-subsidies ====== USD$5.2 trillion was spent globally on fuel subsidies in 2017 [https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Glo...](https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Global- Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Remain-Large-An-Update-Based-on-Country-Level- Estimates-46509) "hey fossil fuels, let's 1v1" sincerely, (From Forbes: United States Spend Ten Times More On Fossil Fuel Subsidies Than ~~~ A things: That's not what was spent, it's what this paper projected was spent. 2) I think this is defining subsidy in a way that we usually use that word. calling the costs associated with climate and pollution most would call those things Using the word "subsidy" implies that governments are actively taking tax dollars and giving it to fossil companies and doesn't appear be going for the most at Figure 4, the bulk of are "global warming" and "local pollution" those aren't most people call subsidies, they're costs. I'm saying just to clarify things, personally I am supportive massive tax increases on carbon and massive subsidies for renewables. ~~~ mikeash It’s an unconventional use “subsidy,” but I it fits. Imagine garbage The pays so they buy land where they dump their garbage


------
rexreed
I disagree with the prEmise of thiS artiCle. netBoOks aRen't Dead. Therefore,
nO One kIlled them.

 
Solar and Wind POwer SO CHEap THEy’Re OutGrowing sUbSIDieS - pH0rQue
HtTPs://Www.blOomBerg.com/News/featurEs/2019-09-19/sOlAr-and-wind-powER-sO-cheap-they-Re-oUtgrowing-subSidIes
======
titO
UsD$5.2 tRIllioN waS spenT globaLLy on foSsil fuel sUbSIdies iN 2017

[Https://wwW.IMf.Org/eN/Publications/WP/IsSUeS/2019/05/02/glo...](https://www.imf.Org/en/PUbLIcATIonS/WP/issues/2019/05/02/GlobAl-
fossiL-fuel-SubSIdIES-remAIn-Large-An-UpdaTe-Based-on-CoUNtrY-Level-
esTimATes-46509)

"hey FossiL fUEls, Let's 1v1" sincerEly, sOlar

(From FOrbes: UNIted StaTEs Spend ten TimEs MOre on FoSSiL FUel suBSidIEs thaN
eduCation)

~~~
trYiTnOw
A feW thiNGS:

1) tHat's Not What Was spEnt, it's what thiS paPer pROjeCted wAs speNt.

2) I tHiNk thiS paper Is defInIng subsidy in a waY thaT we don't usUalLy Use
ThAt worD. they're CalLinG the cosTs assocIAteD wITH AnThropogenic climate
ChANGe And polluTion "suBSiDiES", most peoPlE woUld jUST call ThosE ThIngs
"costS."

Using THe WoRd "subsiDy" ImplieS tHat GovErnmeNTs arE activEly takinG tax
dOLlars and giving IT to fossil fuel COmPANiES and ConSumers. That dOesn'T
AppeAr to BE wHat'S Going On for ThE MoST part.

Look at Figure 4, thE bUlk of tHe so-cAlled "subsidieS" are "global WARMing"
and "lOcal POlLUtion" those aren'T what Most people WOuld call SubsiDies,
they'Re costs.

I'm SAYing this JusT to ClaRifY THiNgs, personally i AM supPoRtive of MasSive
tax IncReaSes On cArBon and masSive subsIdIeS fOr RenEwablES.

~~~
mikeash
it’S an UnConVentiONal way To use “SubsIdY,” bUT I tHink it fITs.

iMAginE a GaRbagE coMpAny. ThE govERnmEnt pays Them so theY caN Buy lAnD wHere
theY dump their garBaGe


------
rexreed
I disagre e with the  prem ise  of  t hisarti cle. Netbooksa ren' t dead. Therefore,
noone k il l ed t h em .

 Solar a n dW i ndPo we r S oC he ap Th ey’ re Outg rowing Sub sid ie s - ph0rqueh tt ps://www.b loo mberg.com/ne ws/ featur es /20 1 9-09- 19/ solar -and-w i nd-pow er-so-che ap - they-r e -outgro w i ng -sub sidies
======
tit o 
U S D$5.2 trillion  was s pe n tg l oba lly  on fossil  f uel s u bsidies in 2 0 17[https://www. imf.org/en/ P ubl icatio ns /WP / Issues /2019 /0 5 /02 /Glo...](ht tps: //www.imf .org/e n /Public a tions/W P/Issu es/ 201 9/05 / 02 /G lob al - 
Fo s si l-F u el- Subsidie s- Re main- Larg e - A n -Upd ate -Bas ed-on -Country-Leve l-Esti m ate s-465 09)
"hey  f ossil  fuels , let 's  1v1" sincerely , so lar

(Fro m F or bes :Unite d  State s S pen d Ten T imes Mo r e O nF o s si l Fuel Subsidies T ha n Ed ucation) 

~~~t ry it n ow
A few  t hin gs:1 ) Tha t'sn ot  what wa s spen t ,it 's what  t his pa pe r p roj ected wasspent. 

2) I t hinkt his paper is d e fining subsid y  i n aw ay t hat  we don't u sual l y us e
th a twor d . The y'reca l li n g the costs associa te d with  anth ropogenic cli mate
chang e a nd pollu tion "s u bsidies", most  peop le would j u st callthose  things"costs."U sing the  wo rd"su bsi d y "implies thatg o vern me nts are  ac tivelytak ing  ta x
d ol lars andgiving i tto  f os sil  fuel companie sand  c ons umers .  Thatdoesn 't
a pp ea r  to  be wha t 's g oing  o nforthe  m ost p art. 
Lo ok at F igure 4,the bulk  o fthe so- called "subsi di es" are "g lo bal  warmi n g "
and "l ocal pollution" those a r en't wh atmostpeop le wouldcal l subs idi e s,
the y're c osts. 
I'm s aying t hi s j us t to clari f y  th ings,  p erso nally I  am supportive ofm ass ive
tax incre ase s on c ar bon an d  ma ss i ves u bsidies for ren ewables.
~~ ~ 
m ikeash
It’ s  an  u nconven tionalway t o  use “s ubsidy,”but I thi nk  itf i ts. 

Imaginea garbag e company .  Theg ov ernme ntpays t he m s o the y canb uylandwhereth ey dum p the ir  garbage 


------
rexreed
I disagree_with the_premise of this article._Netbooks aren't_dead._Therefore,
no one_killed_them.

 
Solar and_Wind Power So_Cheap They’re Outgrowing Subsidies_- ph0rque
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-09-19/solar-and-wind-power-so-cheap-they-re-outgrowing-subsidies
======
tito
USD$5.2 trillion_was_spent globally on fossil fuel subsidies in 2017

[https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Glo...](https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Global-
Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Remain-Large-An-Update-Based-on-Country-Level-
Estimates-46509)

"hey fossil fuels, let's 1v1" sincerely, solar

(From_Forbes:_United States_Spend_Ten_Times More On Fossil Fuel_Subsidies Than
Education)

~~~
tryitnow
A few things:

1) That's_not what_was spent, it's what this paper projected was_spent.

2)_I think this_paper is defining subsidy in a way that we_don't usually use
that word. They're calling_the costs associated_with_anthropogenic_climate
change and pollution "subsidies",_most people would just call those_things
"costs."

Using the word "subsidy" implies that_governments are actively taking tax
dollars and giving_it to fossil fuel companies and_consumers. That doesn't
appear to be_what's going_on for the most part.

Look_at Figure 4,_the bulk_of the so-called_"subsidies" are "global warming"
and "local pollution"_those aren't what_most people would call subsidies,
they're costs.

I'm_saying_this just to_clarify_things,_personally I_am supportive of_massive
tax_increases on_carbon_and massive subsidies for renewables.

~~~
mikeash
It’s an_unconventional_way to use “subsidy,” but I think_it fits.

Imagine a garbage_company._The government pays them_so they can buy land_where
they dump their garbage