Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

COZRUN t1_ivm0bfc wrote

And yet fossil fuels provide 80% of the world's energy.

204

dec7td t1_ivnc97c wrote

Renewables are being constructed at an extremely rapid rate. Installing millions (billions?) of solar panels requires a ton of people. I suspect most of these job numbers are in construction, not operations like it is for fossil generation. The article states 70% of the clean energy jobs are in "building out" the projects.

86

MBunnyKiller t1_ivo55x2 wrote

Yeah and growing rapidly. Just got hired at a Dutch firm making smart grid/battery/car chargers etc. They grow about 50% a year. It's not just Tesla growing at this rate

15

paulwesterberg t1_ivq5lk7 wrote

Any electric transport company able to grow at that rate will.

1

meme_slave_ t1_ivmh9py wrote

If they provide 56% of the jobs while providing 20% of the worlds total energy, i wonder how many jobs would be created if the industry got 5 times larger lol.

(156 million jobs if it scaled linearly)

56

Spring-Dance t1_ivmm26v wrote

It's fueled by government subsidies so it completely depends on if subsidies are increased and will completely collapse if removed

22

cromstantinople t1_ivnj1s3 wrote

‘Fossil Fuels Received $5.9 Trillion In Subsidies in 2020, Report Finds’

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuels-received-5-9-trillion-in-subsidies-in-2020-report-finds

69

Uncle00Buck t1_ivonltg wrote

According to the article, the lion's share is environmental impact (estimated), such as a carbon tax that no one pays. That is not a subsidy.

6

cromstantinople t1_ivpsuz4 wrote

I disagree since it's usually taxpayer-funded projects that have to deal with that impact. We all pay a carbon tax in terms of air quality and premature deaths. The idea being that externalized costs aren't taken into consideration and they most certainly should. The price of fossil fuels are kept low because they externalize cost in addition to getting billions a year in direct government subsidies.

1

Uncle00Buck t1_ivr4e5r wrote

Are we discussing the definition of subsidy or what you think is right? There are substantial societal benefits to fossil fuels as well as negative environmental impact. Do we subtract that portion? Defining value and burden are not black and white. I'm also not in favor of poor folks having to pay more for gas when it represents a chunk of their income. The best solution is that no one should get subsidies and let the market push ripe alternative energy technology.

3

cromstantinople t1_ivrf2i3 wrote

Subsidy, n: a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.

From the IMF report: "Underpricing fossil fuels not only undermines domestic and global environmental objectives but is a highly inefficient policy for helping low- income households2 and has a sizable fiscal cost—too little revenue is raised from fuel taxes, implying other taxes or government deficits must be higher or public spending lower."

The subsidy is that we, as taxpayers and breathers of air, are paying is in higher taxes or lower spending elsewhere or by increased debt/deficits. So, because their costs are externalized, the price of the commodity is kept low thereby forcing governments to pay those costs.

0

_11_ t1_ivnpc57 wrote

I mean. Okay. So is U.S. agriculture. Nobody ever brings that up. Roughly 20% of net farm income is due to government subsidies and our current farming model will completely collapse if they're removed.

Subsidies are used as a way to encourage industries to thrive despite low initial or ongoing profit margins in sectors that are important to the population at large. They're not inherently bad and their use isn't an indicator of worthiness or lack thereof.

17

DirectDire t1_ivnr61k wrote

What if you ignore corn, corn is such bullshit its not good for making fuel and corn syrup is just used in junk food. Corn is a huge scam in the US, heavily subsidized but no real benefit to society. Eating corn normally is fine.

9

InspectorG-007 t1_ivmnwtn wrote

Government could do that for the jobs numbers. And the companies receiving said subsidies likely won't have to produce much in return.

3

xelIent t1_ivnm6cy wrote

We will collapse if we keep relying on fossil fuels though

−1

btrain96007 t1_ivoboqi wrote

I wonder how many would go without heat in the winter? Lol

−2

genericness t1_ivo1mzs wrote

Electricity, maybe. Heating and lighting, no way.

You know the bright thing up in the sky during the day...

0

[deleted] t1_ivm634g wrote

[deleted]

−9

ClemClem510 t1_ivnirh1 wrote

Is it? One is a massively growing industry, the other is an established one. What else should people be expecting?

13

[deleted] t1_ivnjou5 wrote

[deleted]

−15

randomacceptablename t1_ivnlzk5 wrote

The EU? Certain countries are perfectly fine. It is the fact that some countries decided to become completely dependent on Russian energy supplies. Countries that did not aren't doing badly at all.

11