I am going to assume that is a rhetorical question, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you looked at the link to the studies about subsidies you were asking about.
The subsidies concerning the first of the links I gave, and I present them again below in case you didn't look at them, are stated as being world wide. I think that it wouldn't take much to get an idea of Canadas contribution. The figures I have seen are in the area of four Billion per year going to the oil companies.
The second link is to the subsidies which the coal industry receives, just in the United States by way of the externalization of costs associated with the burning of coal there. Again I expect that similar ratios could be used to determine the extent of Canadian subsidization of coal producers. Perhaps more relevant to the discussion about The NDP concerns with oilsands developments, is that this or a similar level of subsidy for externalized costs is appropriate to the dirty oil coming out of the oilsands.
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/me...factsheets.pdf
Fossil-fuel consumption subsidies worldwide amounted to $409 billion in 2010, with subsidies to oil products representing almost half of the total. Persistently high oil prices have made the cost of subsidies unsustainable in many countries and prompted some governments to try to reduce them. In a global survey covering 37 countries where subsidies exist, at least 15 have taken steps to phase them out since the start of 2010. Without further reform, the cost of fossil-fuel consumption subsidies is set to reach $660 billion in 2020, or 0.7% of global GDP (at market exchange rates).
Coal's hidden costs top $345 billion in U.S.-study | Reuters
The United States' reliance on coal to generate almost half of its electricity, costs the economy about $345 billion a year in hidden expenses not borne by miners or utilities, including health problems in mining communities and pollution around power plants, a study found.
Those costs would effectively triple the price of electricity produced by coal-fired plants, which are prevalent in part due to the their low cost of operation, the study led by a Harvard University researcher found.
"This is not borne by the coal industry, this is borne by us, in our taxes," said Paul Epstein, a Harvard Medical School instructor and the associate director of its Center for Health and the Global Environment, the study's lead author.
It's the standard greenie and dipper MO to exclusively use the word subsidy as opposed to the more realistic description of tax deduction... What's also interesting is the fact that beaker and all of the other usual suspects ignore the fact that resource companies must buy the rights and pay a percentage of the resources back to gvt in the form of royalties, stumpage fees, etc.
Convenient little omission
In what way is that an ommission? Would you expect the oil companies be given free right to take the oil, gas, coal, etc.? That wouldn't make much sense to me. The question is whether or not we are benefitting on our bottom line. We know that the fossil fuel developers are by the tale of continuing record profits that emanate over the years from their book-keepers. But since we are paying subsidies to them in such amazing numbers
it seems likely to me that we could be doing better.
The big irony here is that buddy accidentally identified the biggest recipient of indirect gvt subsidies in terms of the regulations imposed to mitigate the cost to the consumer.
would you please provide me with a link concerning these regulations imposed to mitigate the cost to consumers. I just ask because while I have heard such comments before it looks more to me like we are prviding that larger fund to satisfy corporate profit desires.
Makes me wonder if he/she will be hollering about eliminating all gvt incentives and demanding that the consumer pay the full, market value for the resources that are their right.
Dang, and all this time I thought I was arguing with a Conservative. A free marketeer, who would be right on with the theory of user pay. NO? And yes, I think it appropriate that we pay for our energy what it is worth. I'm dumbfounded that you would argue otherwise. Industrial consumers, everybody. Right?
