In addition to the overwhelming majority of the scientific fraternity constantly proving to us that climate change is a clear and present danger, we have also seen the related dire economic warnings about warming coming from the World Bank, IMF, Bloomberg, Citi and HSBC to name just a few economic institutions, who are far from alone.
The International Monetary Fund, in calling for “Energy Subsidy Reform,” recently calculated that between directly lowered prices, tax breaks, and the failure to properly price carbon, the world subsidised fossil fuel use by over $1.9 trillion in 2011 — or 8% of global government revenues, representing a huge drag on economies.
The United States taxpayer is fossil fuels’ largest benefactor at $502 billion in 2011. China came in second at $279 billion, and Russia was third at $116 billion. For perspective, that $502 billion is just over 3% of the US economy, currently being given away to big fossil fuels companies.
The IMF concluded that the “link between subsidies, consumption of energy, and climate change has added a new dimension to the debate on energy subsidies.” The IMF’s solution to both economic and climate risk (as reported by The Hill) is in two simple parts: “end fossil fuel subsidies and tax carbon.” The solution to both climate and economy is worldwide conversion from fossil fuels to renewables.
Economically - What is the logical future for fossil fuels versus renewables?
Fossil fuels have already begun to rapidly lose market share. In 2012, most new electricity generating capacity brought on line in the United States was from renewables, and in January and now March 2013, all new U.S. electrical generating capacity was provided by renewables. So where is this headed?