1. It's an IMF working paper, which 'do not necessarily represent the views of the IMF'. It is clearly embraced by IMF managing director Lagarde. From the horses mouth: Madame Lagarde - 'If you look at our numbersfrom 2015, it is no less than about $5.2 trillion that are spent on fuel subsidies and the consequences thereof. And the Fiscal Affairs Department has actually identified, you know, how much would have been saved fiscally but also in terms of human life, if there had been the right price on carbon emission as of 2015. The numbers are quite staggering.' [1-2] Plenty of references to her expressing this.
2. I clearly pointed to the direct cost (US$728 billion), and frankly, if you think the health and climate change costs caused by fossil fuel isn't indirectly subsidised then you're not seeing the bigger picture. Who pays for the health and climate issues? In the UK >40,000 die each year from air pollution, the healthcare for them and countless not dying IS, by extension, subsidies. In india, more than 1,000,000 died last year from air pollution etc etc
The point is (in addition to direct subsidies), use of fossil fuel causes health and environmental issues that our salary tax is paying for. By extension, WE are subsidising the true cost of fossil fuel usage. Can you see it? If no fossil fuel, no fossil fuel related issues = money that government can spend on other things..
Don't even get me started on the other huge global issues.. On this board we can/should only extend things to things that matter for LYC, and to me equates to rapid embracement of (B)EV and wind power.
(20min delay)
