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.

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.