{"id":263717,"date":"2023-06-24T20:11:28","date_gmt":"2023-06-24T18:11:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=263717"},"modified":"2023-06-24T20:11:40","modified_gmt":"2023-06-24T18:11:40","slug":"an-abuse-of-language","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=263717","title":{"rendered":"An Abuse of\u00a0Language"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

From Climate Scepticism<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0MARK HODGSON<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Almost two years ago, Jit wrote an article<\/a> pointing out that claims made in the Guardian and elsewhere about alleged UK subsidies for fossil fuels were more than a little dubious. When he investigated the claims, he found, almost without exception, that the alleged subsidies were no such thing. Instead, the alleged subsidies amounted to tax reliefs or taxation at a lower level than might otherwise be the case. For example, it takes extraordinary chutzpah to claim that a reduced rate of excise for red diesel is a subsidy, when fuel excise duty in 2019-20 cost the average UK household around \u00a31,000 and amounted to 1.2% of national income.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

My Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines \u201csubsidy\u201d as:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

a sum of money granted from public funds to help an industry or business keep the price of a commodity or service low; a sum of money granted to support an undertaking held to be in the public interest; a grant or contribution of money.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The common factor in all three limbs of the definition is the giving of funds to the person being subsidised. It does not involve taking less money from someone than might otherwise be the case. Doing so might or might not be controversial, but whatever else it is, it is not a subsidy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

World Bank<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Using language correctly doesn\u2019t seem to matter when there\u2019s a planet to save. The World Bank recently issued a report<\/a> with the title \u201cDetox Development \u2013 Repurposing Environmentally Harmful Subsidies<\/em>\u201d. The report covers a number of areas, and focuses on agricultural impacts on land, fishing in the oceans, and the effect of fossil fuels on air quality. As it runs to over 300 pages, I will confine my gaze to the section dealing with supposed fossil fuel subsidies. In passing, I note that the Guardian seized gleefully on the report with an article<\/a> carrying the alarmist and alarming headline: \u201cVast fossil fuel and farming subsidies causing \u2018environmental havoc\u2019<\/em> \u2013 World Bank says subsidies costing as much as $23m a minute must be repurposed to fight climate crisis<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What, then, of these awful fossil fuel subsidies? It isn\u2019t always easy to separate the \u201csubsidies\u201d relating to fossil fuels from those relating to fishing and agriculture, since the headline-grabbing introduction lumps them all together. The first thing to notice is that the \u201csubsidies\u201d are alleged to exceed US$7 trillion per year, but:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This includes both explicit subsidies\u2014which are direct public expenditures totaling about US$1.25 trillion\u2014and implicit subsidies\u2014which measure the societal impacts of externalities and amount to more than US$6 trillion.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Immediately we notice that just over 17% of the \u201csubsidies\u201d are actually subsidies, as defined by my dictionary. The other 83% or so aren\u2019t subsidies at all, not unless you decide to redefine words, as the World Bank and others have obviously decided to do. They introduce (or repeat) the concept of an \u201cimplicit subsidy\u201d, which seems to mean someone\u2019s assessment of what fossil fuel producers are getting away without paying. Or, as the World Bank puts it:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implicit subsidies are measured as unpriced externalities and account for the rest of the burden of subsidies on society and the economy.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In any event, persevere with the report, and the explicit fossil fuel subsidies apparently amount to less than half of the headline sum across the three sectors, namely US$577 billion in 2021. Keep reading, and it turns out that the numbers are in any event someone else\u2019s estimate, not the result of World Bank research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Parry, Black and Vernon<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The $577 billion figure covers 191 countries and comes from a 2021 report by Parry, Black and Vernon. As does the $5.4 trillion figure for \u201cestimated impacts from local air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, road congestion, and forgone tax revenues<\/em>\u201d. That report (which can be downloaded here<\/a> tells us that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Underpricing for local air pollution costs is the largest contributor to global fossil fuel subsidies (Figure ES3), accounting for 42 percent, followed by global warming costs (29 percent), other local externalities such as congestion and road accidents (15 percent), explicit subsidies (8 percent) and foregone consumption tax revenue (6 percent).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

They recognise that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although environmental costs are subject to uncertainty and controversy, they are a key component of the societal costs of fossil fuel use and therefore it is important to factor an unbiased estimate of them into fuel prices.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It in turn refers to earlier papers, which introduced concepts and methodology seeking to assess these costs, and before you know it, you\u2019ve disappeared down a rabbit hole:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Coady and others (2015) introduced the concepts of narrow or \u2018pre-tax\u2019 subsidies and broad or \u2018post-tax\u2019 subsidies where the former reflected (most importantly) underpricing for supply costs and (less importantly) subsidies for fossil fuel producers, while the latter also included underpricing for (most importantly) environmental costs and (less importantly) general consumption taxes. Coady and others (2019), for example, put global post-tax subsidies at a striking $4.7 trillion in 20153, or 6.3 percent of world GDP, with only 5 percent of this figure reflecting pre-tax subsides. This paper uses a slightly different terminology4, referring to explicit subsidies as undercharging for supply costs and producer subsidies (i.e., pre-tax subsidies), and implicit subsidies as undercharging for environmental costs and general consumption taxes (i.e., post tax subsidies less pre-tax subsidies).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reading on (I\u2019m still in the Parry, Black & Vernon paper) and we learn that most of the alleged indirect subsidies (or under-pricing) relate to the power generation sector and that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By region East Asia and the Pacific accounts for 48 percent of total energy subsidies. And by country, China remains the biggest subsidizer in absolute terms, followed by the US, Russia, India, and the EU.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I can\u2019t help thinking that what all this means is that mostly (but not invariably) developing countries are trying to keep prices low in order to ensure that their poor inhabitants can enjoy affordable power supplies. I\u2019m not sure that counts as an unqualified evil, but I am sure that you won\u2019t easily persuade them to stop doing it. I am also confident that in the unlikely event that you do persuade them to stop doing it, the inhabitants of those countries will be extremely unhappy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The study identifies annual subsidies (both explicit and implicit) per capita in the UK of US$352. This compares to other countries at the following per capita rates (al in US$):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Argentina: 644<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Australia: 1,729<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Canada: 1,686<\/p>\n\n\n\n

China: 1,569<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Germany: 863<\/p>\n\n\n\n

France:457<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Indonesia: 470<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Italy: 676<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Japan: 1,348<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Russia: 3,560<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Saudi Arabia: 4,548<\/p>\n\n\n\n

South Africa: 848<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[South] Korea: 1,332<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Turkey: 1,387<\/p>\n\n\n\n

USA: 2,006<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Iran: 1,815.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Remind me why we in the UK keep beating ourselves up and have to \u201clead the way\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nigeria<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here, in the real world, is an example of what happens when you revoke explicit subsidies (heaven help you if you go for those \u201cimplicit\u201d subsidies). Nigeria recently scrapped (or announced the scrapping of) direct subsidies, and it\u2019s not going well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cNigeria fuel subsidy: Tinubu\u2019s plan to scrap measure sparks rush to stock up<\/em>\u201d says the BBC<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first full day in power of Nigeria\u2019s new president has seen people panic-buying fuel following his decision to scrap a decades-long subsidy on petroleum products\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026Some people have posted videos online of filling stations already increasing prices, in some cases by more than 200%.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some drivers of private buses, which many Nigerians rely on to get around, have also been unable to fill up their vehicles.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This has left people stranded at major bus stops in the capital, Abuja, and the country\u2019s biggest city, Lagos.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And here\u2019s Amnesty International\u2019s take<\/a> on it \u2013 \u201cNigeria: Removal of fuel subsidy must not exacerbate poverty<\/em>\u201d:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Nigerian authorities must urgently put in place measures to protect the rights of people most affected by the removal of the fuel subsidies and prioritize addressing widespread hunger, higher unemployment and the rapidly falling standard of living.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Problems with the World Bank Report<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first and most obvious problem is how we define subsidies. Although it is clear that much work has been done to try to justify the concept of \u201cimplicit\u201d subsidies, and to render that concept an objective one, it seems to me that a great deal of subjectivity remains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That can readily be illustrated by the briefest of analyses of the central thrust of the report, to the effect that fossil fuels cause air pollution which lead to premature deaths. Yet its own analysis says that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While outdoor air pollution is pervasive, poor air quality also poses severe health risks inside people\u2019s homes. Indoor air pollution results from the burning of solid fuels like coal, wood, dung, or crop waste for cooking, lighting, and heating (Ritchie and Roser 2022). The combustion of such substances releases various pollutants that are harmful to human health. As with ambient air pollution, long-term exposure to these pollutants increases the risk of life-threatening diseases, making indoor air pollution one of the leading global environmental risk factors (Murray et al. 2020). Global estimates of premature deaths caused by indoor air pollution are similar in number to those caused by outdoor air pollution. The World Health Organization (WHO 2022) estimates that nearly 4 million people die annually from exposure to indoor air pollution, compared to the 4.2 million deaths from ambient air pollution in 2016 (WHO 2021a).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This leads to the second problem \u2013 the denial of cheap and reliable electricity to hundreds of millions (perhaps billions) of people in developing country forces them to rely on polluting substances within their homes for cooking, lighting and heating. Making fossil fuels more expensive in order to remove their alleged \u201cimplicit\u201d subsidies and (in fine neo-colonial manner) insisting that developing countries must follow us down the \u201cnet zero\u201d road, renders it less likely that inhabitants of developing countries will escape from their polluted homes. This point is made forcibly by looking at the map that accompanies the World Bank report \u2013 death rates from indoor pollution are at their highest in sub-Saharan Africa and in east Asia, notably China, but especially the Indian sub-continent and Indonesia. As the World Bank report itself says:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Indoor air pollution poses particular health risks to people in low- and middle-income countries and vulnerable groups like children, women, the sick, and the elderly. The vast majority of deaths due to indoor air pollution\u2014that is, 81 percent (or 1.8 million deaths)\u2014occur in low- or lower-middle-income countries, especially in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa (IHME 2020). Globally, progress has been made in reducing deaths due to indoor air pollution, as the number of annual premature deaths was halved between 1990 and 2019. Yet improvements have been significantly smaller in SubSaharan Africa, where the annual number of deaths from indoor air pollution declined by only 15 percent in the same time frame (Ritchie and Roser 2022). Map  B2.3.1 highlights the above-average mortality from air pollution in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Indoor air pollution disproportionately affects poor people. Households that cannot afford clean cooking and heating fuels, like electricity or natural gas, are forced to use polluting solid fuels instead. Figure B2.3.1 summarizes the WHO\u2019s Energy Ladder, which highlights the higher dependency of poor households on toxic fuels. According to World Bank data, about 3 billion people\u201440 percent of the world\u2019s population\u2014still lack access to modern energy sources for their home use.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In low- and lower-middle-income countries, the use of dirtier, unsafe solid fuels is more prevalent, and the death rate from indoor air pollution is higher. This situation highlights the risk that removing subsidies on relatively clean-burning fossil fuels, such as liquefied petroleum gas, will force households to switch to cheaper polluting biomass fuels.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And remember what Parry, Black and Vernon said, namely that most of the alleged indirect subsidies (or under-pricing) relate to the power generation sector and that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By region East Asia and the Pacific accounts for 48 percent of total energy subsidies. And by country, China remains the biggest subsidizer in absolute terms, followed by the US, Russia, India, and the EU.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The third problem is that removing the alleged \u201cindirect\u201d subsidies, by increasing the price of fossil fuels will (despite the claims of the World Bank report that the rich benefit most from \u201csubsidies\u201d) cause huge pain and societal problems, especially if forced upon developing countries. The recent example of Nigeria amply demonstrates what happens when explicit subsidies are removed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, there is the problem that demand for fossil fuels is relatively inelastic. As the World Bank report says in its introduction:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On average, a 10 percent increase in the unit price of energy results in a short-run reduction of consumption of about 2 percent. This means the demand for energy is only sluggishly responsive to prices, especially when cleaner alternatives are unavailable or unaffordable.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In other words, increasing the price of fossil fuels (by removing direct or \u201cindirect\u201d subsidies) won\u2019t make much difference to demand (though it will make people poorer).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I am left with a sense of considerable bemusement. The World Bank report purports to justify claims that fossil fuels enjoy massive \u201cindirect\u201d subsidies; that removing such subsidies will affect rich people more than poor ones; and that the result of increasing the price of fossil fuels will reduce air pollution and save lives. Yet the real world evidence, and much of the contents of its own report seem to contradict those conclusions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And words no longer mean what they used to mean.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

And words no longer mean what they used to mean.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":263720,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691818056,691818228,691818299,691818248,691820465],"class_list":{"0":"post-263717","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-climate-change","9":"tag-fossil-fuels","10":"tag-subsidies","11":"tag-uk","12":"tag-world-bank","14":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/00Newspeak-13.jpg?fit=1600%2C995&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-16Bv","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":197176,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=197176","url_meta":{"origin":263717,"position":0},"title":"Does The UK Subsidise Fossil Fuels?","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"24\/04\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"By Paul Homewood https:\/\/notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com\/2022\/04\/23\/renewable-subsidies-have-cost-78-billion-in-last-10-years\/ . There has long been a concerted effort by the green lobby to persuade the public that they are paying billions in subsidies to the nasty fossil fuel industry, particularly in the UK. The above comment exemplifies this. He quotes the OECD, who are of course\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/0baf64-cartoon.webp?fit=640%2C359&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/0baf64-cartoon.webp?fit=640%2C359&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/0baf64-cartoon.webp?fit=640%2C359&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":349478,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=349478","url_meta":{"origin":263717,"position":1},"title":"No, Fossil Fuels Are Not Being \u201cSubsidised\u201d","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"30\/10\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Whenever discussing renewables subsidies on the internet, there is a form of Godwin\u2019s Law that means it is inevitable that someone will come along and say: \u201cAckshually, fossil fuels are subsidised more than renewables,\u201d or words to that effect, as shown\u00a0in this example. I have often thought the claim to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"climate alarmism\"","block_context":{"text":"climate alarmism","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-alarmism"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0Czech-Republic-operation-Temelin-Nuclear-Power-Plant-2003-1024x669.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0Czech-Republic-operation-Temelin-Nuclear-Power-Plant-2003-1024x669.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0Czech-Republic-operation-Temelin-Nuclear-Power-Plant-2003-1024x669.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0Czech-Republic-operation-Temelin-Nuclear-Power-Plant-2003-1024x669.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":390135,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=390135","url_meta":{"origin":263717,"position":2},"title":"The $7 Trillion Fossil Fuel Subsidy\u00a0Swindle","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"21\/07\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"We\u2019re used to claims that fossil fuels are being subsidised to the tune of trillions of pounds by governments around the world.","rel":"","context":"In \"$7 trillion\"","block_context":{"text":"$7 trillion","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=7-trillion"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/AQMsc5sRhENLawe0_X_Fm7tC589LwEQB1EVE74mxGwbPMr2cjWWSVQWQCZByGlcxLMW35Cqp_xJZdLf-MOpqsZtazzOgpRo44LhbRsymXgoDX6o6mW65Sy_b9qc_oS2FQ2pD7wJWRLD_qO7n-IHgdYuplL-l.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/AQMsc5sRhENLawe0_X_Fm7tC589LwEQB1EVE74mxGwbPMr2cjWWSVQWQCZByGlcxLMW35Cqp_xJZdLf-MOpqsZtazzOgpRo44LhbRsymXgoDX6o6mW65Sy_b9qc_oS2FQ2pD7wJWRLD_qO7n-IHgdYuplL-l.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/AQMsc5sRhENLawe0_X_Fm7tC589LwEQB1EVE74mxGwbPMr2cjWWSVQWQCZByGlcxLMW35Cqp_xJZdLf-MOpqsZtazzOgpRo44LhbRsymXgoDX6o6mW65Sy_b9qc_oS2FQ2pD7wJWRLD_qO7n-IHgdYuplL-l.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/AQMsc5sRhENLawe0_X_Fm7tC589LwEQB1EVE74mxGwbPMr2cjWWSVQWQCZByGlcxLMW35Cqp_xJZdLf-MOpqsZtazzOgpRo44LhbRsymXgoDX6o6mW65Sy_b9qc_oS2FQ2pD7wJWRLD_qO7n-IHgdYuplL-l.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/AQMsc5sRhENLawe0_X_Fm7tC589LwEQB1EVE74mxGwbPMr2cjWWSVQWQCZByGlcxLMW35Cqp_xJZdLf-MOpqsZtazzOgpRo44LhbRsymXgoDX6o6mW65Sy_b9qc_oS2FQ2pD7wJWRLD_qO7n-IHgdYuplL-l.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":389981,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=389981","url_meta":{"origin":263717,"position":3},"title":"Which Are The “Stranded Assets” Now?","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"20\/07\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"How quickly things change. It was only two years ago, in 2023, that I was writing posts compiling long lists of quotes from climate activists warning that all assets used for production of coal, oil and gas were about to become obsolete and \u201cstranded.\u201d After all, wind and solar were\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"climate activists\"","block_context":{"text":"climate activists","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-activists"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/OIG-2023-07-29T181213.773.jpeg?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/OIG-2023-07-29T181213.773.jpeg?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/OIG-2023-07-29T181213.773.jpeg?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/OIG-2023-07-29T181213.773.jpeg?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":279048,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=279048","url_meta":{"origin":263717,"position":4},"title":"The Mirage of Fossil Fuel Subsidies: Unraveling the IMF\u2019s Dubious Claims","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"16\/09\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Legacy media, with its penchant for sensationalism, recently paraded a headline that would give even the most seasoned energy analyst pause: \u201cFossil fuels being subsidised at rate of $13 million a minute, says IMF\u201d. Citing a staggering $7 trillion in support for fossil fuels in 2022, the claim is audacious,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0International_Monetary_Fund_logo.jpg?fit=1178%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0International_Monetary_Fund_logo.jpg?fit=1178%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0International_Monetary_Fund_logo.jpg?fit=1178%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0International_Monetary_Fund_logo.jpg?fit=1178%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0International_Monetary_Fund_logo.jpg?fit=1178%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":284477,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=284477","url_meta":{"origin":263717,"position":5},"title":"CCN Demand Higher Energy Prices (But Don\u2019t Tell The\u00a0Proles!)","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"22\/10\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The far left extremists and eco- nutters really want is for us all to pay much more for our energy in the name of global warming. Well, what do they want to tell us when we get a colder climate period? From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT By\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"CCN\"","block_context":{"text":"CCN","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=ccn"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/5f3c4f30cb34dc2ac325aab70c566517.jpeg?fit=1200%2C673&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/5f3c4f30cb34dc2ac325aab70c566517.jpeg?fit=1200%2C673&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/5f3c4f30cb34dc2ac325aab70c566517.jpeg?fit=1200%2C673&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/5f3c4f30cb34dc2ac325aab70c566517.jpeg?fit=1200%2C673&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/5f3c4f30cb34dc2ac325aab70c566517.jpeg?fit=1200%2C673&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/263717","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=263717"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/263717\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":263723,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/263717\/revisions\/263723"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/263720"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=263717"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=263717"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=263717"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}