Seriously?? That article was the source of the snapshot I have posted a few times to point out the flaws in the maths.
Let's just start at the first line, the "Fuel Tax credit scheme", as that makes up about 50% of the total.
1. The authors ADMIT that only some 20% of that estimate of "fuel tax credits go directly to fossil fuel producers" but, what the heck, they "included the full amount as it all goes to supporting the consumption of fossil fuels" but supply no links & no proof.
How's that for a $5 BILLION hole in their argument?
2. Fuel Tax Credits are not a subsidy; see link to a Minerals Council of Australia article. I read your RenewEconomy articles so please don't just fob off the MCA FACTS.
http://www.minerals.org.au/news/fuel_tax_credits_are_not_a_subsidy
3. Let's now look at the second line "Statutory effective life caps (accelerated depreciation)***". The authors tag all that as a subsidy "which allow for accelerated depreciation and a shorter write-off period for many vehicles".
Will those "subsides" also carry over to electric cars too I wonder??
Lastly, my favourite "fossil fuel subsidy" amongst a slew of FBT assumptions is $550M for "FBT - Alternatives to the logbook method of substantiating car expenses".
This article by the Market Forces group (an affiliate project of Friends of the Earth Australia) is not an objective study.
