With increased corporate globalization, capital can pick up and move at will, inducing political office holders to hand out subsidies, waive taxes and refuse to enforce safety and environmental laws.
Most of the cost of fossil fuels is hidden because environmental harms such as pollution and global warming are kept outside ordinary economic calculation. Energy companies externalize these costs (among others) - that is, they don't pay them. The public does.
And we do, to a remarkable extent. When we think of corporate subsidies, we naturally think of taxes not paid, real estate giveaways and other ways of taking money from the public and shoveling it into corporate coffers.
Then there are the environmental costs, something prominent if we are talking about fossil fuels. These, too, should be thought of as subsidies since these constitute costs paid by the public.
A first attempt at seriously quantifying the magnitude of the totality of subsidies given to fossil fuels leads to a conclusion that the total for 2014 was US$5.6 trillion, a total expected to be matched in 2015.
Yes, you read that correctly: 5.6 trillion dollars. As in $5.6 million million. Or, to put it another way, more than seven percent of gross world product. A lot of money.
IMF report: 'huge benefits' from eliminating fossil fuel subsidies
These calculations are, interestingly, the product of an International Monetary Fund working paper, 'How Large Are Global Energy Subsidies?'
The paper, prepared by economists David Coady, Ian Parry, Louis Sears and Baoping Shang, sought to provide a fuller accounting of the costs of the environmental damages caused by fossil fuels, and found that those costs greatly exceed direct corporate subsidies and below-cost consumer pricing. The authors foresee huge benefits should all fossil-fuel subsidies be eliminated. They write:
"Eliminating post-tax subsidies in 2015 could raise government revenue by $2.9 trillion (3.6 percent of global GDP), cut global CO₂ emissions by more than 20 percent, and cut pre-mature air pollution deaths by more than half. After allowing for the higher energy costs faced by consumers, this action would raise global economic welfare by $1.8 trillion (2.2 percent of global GDP)." [page 7]
As dramatic as the preceding paragraph is, the International Monetary Fund is not suddenly questioning capitalism. The paper carries the caveat that it is "research in progress" and does not represent the views of the IMF.
Nor does the paper devote so much as a single word questioning the economic system that has produced such astounding distortions, not to mention the hideous social effects of massive inequality and power imbalances.
Nonetheless, it does present an implicit challenge to business as usual and helps conceptualize the massive costs of profligate energy usage. The paper lays out in plain language the environmental, fiscal, economic and social consequences of energy subsidies, stating that energy subsidies [page 5]:
- Damage the environment, causing more premature deaths through local air pollution, exacerbating congestion and other adverse side effects of vehicle use, and increasing atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations.
- Impose large fiscal costs, which need to be financed by some combination of higher public debt, higher tax burdens and crowding out potentially productive public spending (for example, on health, education and infrastructure).
- Discourage needed investments in energy efficiency, renewables and energy infrastructure, and increase the vulnerability of countries to volatile international energy prices.
- Are a highly inefficient way to provide support to low-income households since most of the benefits from energy subsidies are typically captured by rich households.
Paying for air pollution and global warming
The biggest subsidized cost is air pollution, which the paper's authors estimate accounts for 46% of fossil fuel subsidies. Global warming is the next biggest subsidy, at 22%, with corporate and consumer subsidies, foregone taxes and other items accounting for smaller amounts.
From this calculation, the authors argue that local benefits from ending subsidies are high enough that doing so should be done in the absence of action in other countries. They write:
"An important point, therefore, is that most (over three-fourths) of the underpricing of energy is due to domestic distortions - pre-tax subsidies and domestic externalities - rather than to global distortions (climate change). The crucial implication of this is that energy pricing reform is largely in countries' own domestic interest and therefore is beneficial even in the absence of globally coordinated action." [page 21]
When the costs are broken down by forms of energy, it is no surprise that coal is the most subsidized form. Coal subsidies alone total almost four percent of global GDP, according to the paper, with "no country ... impos[ing] meaningful taxes on coal use from an environmental perspective." Petroleum is also heavily subsidized.
If we could at a stroke eliminate all forms of fossil fuel subsidies, the gains would be significant. The authors believe that global revenue gains would be $2.9 trillion for 2015, a total less than the current cost of subsidies because it accounts for a reduction in energy usage from higher prices and an assumption that some tax money would be used for emission-control technologies.
The authors also calculate a $1.8 trillion net gain in social welfare, a gain that could be increased were this gain used to invest in education, health and other public benefits.
So if so much good can come from rationalizing the fossil fuel industry, why does this sound like an impossible dream? Unfortunately, in real world of capitalism, there is very little to prevent corporations from externalizing their costs.
With increased corporate globalization, capital can pick up and move at will, inducing political office holders to hand out subsidies, waive taxes and refuse to enforce safety and environmental laws. They do this because the alternative is for corporations to move elsewhere in a never-ending search for the lowest wages and weakest regulations with an accompanying disappearance of jobs.
And this globalization, fueled by 'free trade' agreements that arise from relentless competition, aggravates global warming as components are shipped around the world for assembly into finished products that are shipped back, greatly adding to the environmental damage imposed by transportation.
Environment doesn't count in orthodox economics
Not only is the environment an externality that corporations do not have to account for, thereby dumping the costs on to the public, but orthodox economics doesn't account for the environment, other than as a source of resources to exploit.
The same capitalist market that is nothing more than the aggregate interests of the largest and most powerful industrialists and financiers is supposed to "solve" environmental problems. A Monthly Review article by sociologists Richard York, Brett Clark and John Bellamy Foster, 'Capitalism in Wonderland', puts this contradiction in stark perspective:
"Mainstream economists are trained in the promotion of private profits as the singular ‘bottom line' of society, even at the expense of larger issues of human welfare and the environment. The market rules over all, even nature.
"For Milton Friedman the environment was not a problem since the answer was simple and straightforward. As he put it: ‘ecological values can find their natural space in the market, like any other consumer demand.' " [May 2009, page 4]
From that perspective, it follows that present-day environmental damage is of minimal concern to capital and future damage of no concern. The industrialists and financiers who reap billions today won't necessarily be around when the environmental price becomes too high to avoid. The 'Capitalism in Wonderland' authors write:
"[T]he ideology embedded in orthodox neoclassical economics [is] a field which regularly presents itself as using objective, even naturalistic, methods for modeling the economy. However, past all of the equations and technical jargon, the dominant economic paradigm is built on a value system that prizes capital accumulation in the short-term, while de-valuing everything else in the present and everything altogether in the future ...
"[H]uman life in effect is worth only what each person contributes to the economy as measured in monetary terms. So, if global warming increases mortality in Bangladesh, which it appears likely that it will, this is only reflected in economic models to the extent that the deaths of Bengalis hurt the economy.
"Since Bangladesh is very poor, [orthodox] economic models ... would not estimate it to be worthwhile to prevent deaths there since these losses would show up as minuscule in the measurements. ... [E]thical concerns about the intrinsic value of human life and of the lives of other creatures are completely invisible in standard economic models.
"Increasing human mortality and accelerating the rate of extinctions are to most economists only problems if they undermine the ‘bottom line.' In other respects they are invisible: as is the natural world as a whole." [pages 9-10]
Tinkering versus analyzing the structure
The International Monetary Fund paper does offer a brief discussion of social disruptions should fossil-fuel subsidies be removed, suggesting a need for "transitory" programs such as worker retraining and protection of vulnerable groups. [page 31] But their proposed program centers on environmental taxes as a way to align fossil fuels with their costs to make energy prices "efficient".
Certainly, polluters and causers of global warming should be required to absorb those costs. But given that market forces tilt overwhelmingly in favor of large polluters, the fact of massive imbalances in power, and that governments have handcuffed themselves in terms of confronting capital (a trend itself a product of market forces), it is unrealistic to believe such a program is currently politically feasible.
The disruptions to a capitalist economy with a forced large reduction in energy usage are also significant. It is not only that a capitalist economy can't function without growing (and a growing economy uses more, not less, energy, especially because of ever more complex machinery and lengthening supply chains), but that a capitalist economy doesn't offer millions of workers who lose their jobs new work in new industries.
Every incentive under capitalism is for more energy usage; thus 'the market' will object to dramatically higher energy prices, no matter how rational those higher prices.
Ultimately, the authors of the IMF paper are trapped in the same inability to imagine anything outside the present capitalist system, similar to those who claim that stopping global warming will be virtually cost-free.
Energy is way too important to be left to 'the market'
Their paper has done a necessary service by providing the first real quantification of the gigantic costs of fossil fuels and the massive subsidies they receive. Subsidies for renewable energy, in comparison, are minuscule.
The massive subsidies for nuclear energy, which is a complete failure on any rational economic basis before we even get to the physical dangers, demonstrate that nuclear is no solution, either. These should also be eliminated.
The size of the social movement that would be necessary to eliminate all these subsidies would be enormous. Why should such a movement ask for mere reforms that fall well short of what is necessary, worthy as they would be.
Energy is too important not to be put in public hands. The trillions of dollars of fossil fuel subsidies are the logical product of allowing private interests to control critical resources for private profit and leaving 'the market' to dictate outcomes.
We can't make what is unsustainable sustainable through a better tax policy. That the enormous scale of reform proposed by the IMF paper still falls far short of what is actually necessary to create a sustainable economy demonstrates the severity of the crises we are only beginning to face.
Pete Dolack writes the Systemic Disorder blog. He has been an activist with several groups.
This article was originally published on Systemic Disorder.