Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Ronald Steenblik

@ronsteenblik.bsky.social

2.2K followers 850 following 5.6K posts

Retired OECD staff member. I post on trade, environment, energy (especially fossil fuel subsidies). Supporting QUNO's work on identifying & reducing subsidies to #plastics. Commenting in my personal capacity. Once told by Mel Brooks: "You have no taste!"

Posts Media Videos Starter Packs

Pinned

Ronald Steenblik @ronsteenblik.bsky.social · Oct 15

1⃣ Since 2013, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has published biennially global estimates of what they call "explicit" and "implicit" #FossilFuelSubsidies.

Those estimates are widely cited, but also widely misinterpreted & misrepresented. And some things they include shouldn't be.

A long 🧵.

Fossil Fuel Subsidies

Subsidies are intended to protect consumers by keeping prices low, but they come at a high cost. Subsidies have sizable fiscal costs (leading to higher taxes/borrowing or lower spending), promote inef...

www.imf.org

12 24 65

Ronald Steenblik @ronsteenblik.bsky.social · 8h

Indeed, especially with no green squares preceding it. We both tied the Bot today.

Wordle 1,574 4/6

⬜🟨⬜⬜🟨
⬜⬜🟨⬜⬜
🟨🟩⬜🟩🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

Reposted by Ronald Steenblik

Borderlex @borderlex.net · 8h

1/ Our Week in Brussels column:

🔸ideal for those who don't want to be swamped by trade news daily
🔸.... but want a good insider look at what's cooking in trade policy in the EU.

borderlex.net/2025/10/10/w...

Week in Brussels: Due diligence, deforestation, Singapore - Borderlex

Our weekly roundup of EU trade policy news

borderlex.net

1 1 1

Ronald Steenblik @ronsteenblik.bsky.social · 23h

Fossil fuel CONSUMPTION subsidies. (The IEA doesn’t estimate fossil fuel production subsidies, which are an order of magnitude smaller.)

Ronald Steenblik @ronsteenblik.bsky.social · 1d

First in the line of succession. 🤮

Ronald Steenblik @ronsteenblik.bsky.social · 1d

Note: missing from the IMF estimates are any externalities related to production of fossil fuels, like land disturbance and degradation, methane leaks, and oil spills.

1 1

Ronald Steenblik @ronsteenblik.bsky.social · 1d

My strong recommendation: Cite the @oilchange.bsky.social
estimates of actual FF subsidies (🔗), which they put at $35 billion a year, and if you want to mention externalities related to combustion, cite the $430 billion (+ VAT) number from the IMF, but call them what they are: externalities.

Paying for Climate Chaos: U.S. Federal Subsidies for Fossil Fuel Production - Oil Change International

“Paying for Climate Chaos” reveals the staggering scope of federal government subsidies for fossil fuel production, est. at a whopping $34.8 billion per year.

oilchange.org

1 1 1

Ronald Steenblik @ronsteenblik.bsky.social · 1d

... of congestion (time wasted in traffic) and accidents — would be just as large if all 🚗s on U.S. roads were EVs. Those aren't even un-taxed externalities related to fossil fuel use per se, much less "subsidies" to gasoline and diesel.

Ronald Steenblik @ronsteenblik.bsky.social · 1d

... the IMF's estimate of how much U.S. consumers of fossil fuels should have paid more in (non-existent) carbon and other taxes on the fuel they purchased. Of that, 55% relate to greenhouse gases and air pollutants, but 45% relate to DRIVING. Yet those "vehicle externalities" — the social costs ...

Ronald Steenblik @ronsteenblik.bsky.social · 1d

The actual IMF number is $757 billion for 2022. And I contest much of it. For one, of that total, only $3 billion are producer subsidies — clearly an undercount. The remainder, $754 billion are not "tax breaks" according to standard definitions (there has to be a tax to provide a break on), but ...

Ronald Steenblik @ronsteenblik.bsky.social · 1d

“… national fossil fuel subsidies from governments totalled $7 trillion globally in 2022, …”. Um, no. A complete mischaracterization of the (admittedly confusing) IMF numbers, most of which are estimates of externalities, and very little of which represents “government spending”. See my 📌ed skeet.

Ronald Steenblik @ronsteenblik.bsky.social · 1d

See my 📌ed skeet.

Ronald Steenblik @ronsteenblik.bsky.social · 1d

I understand. I’m not justifying the FF subsidies either. Just countering the assertion made by many (wasn’t sure in your case) that the U.S. govt is “spending” hundreds of billions of dollars a year on subsidies to the industry. These claims usually link back to the highly misleading IMF numbers.

Ronald Steenblik @ronsteenblik.bsky.social · 1d

Depends on the prices of oil and gas (which also affect the price of coal). When the prices are high, development of new fields don’t need the subsidies, as prices drop, the subsidies become more important. Can’t vouch for the “half” assertion, but could be that high at times.

Why fossil fuel producer subsidies matter

This article in Nature explains how subsidies affect fossil fuel investment and why they deserve greater attention in global modelling analyses.

www.sei.org

Ronald Steenblik @ronsteenblik.bsky.social · 1d

Yes, billions. But not $760 billion a year.

Ronald Steenblik @ronsteenblik.bsky.social · 1d

“Hundreds of billions they already receive?” Per decade, yes. Per year, no.

Ronald Steenblik @ronsteenblik.bsky.social · 1d

Did you mean to write DON’T read braille?

Ronald Steenblik @ronsteenblik.bsky.social · 1d

JFK and George H.W. Bush, too!

Ronald Steenblik @ronsteenblik.bsky.social · 1d

I had the exact same sequence of words today as the Bot.

Wordle 1,573 4/6

⬜⬜🟨⬜⬜
⬜⬜🟩⬜🟩
⬜🟩🟩⬜🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

Ronald Steenblik @ronsteenblik.bsky.social · 1d

Huh? The graph shows through 2024. What am I not seeing here?

Reposted by Ronald Steenblik

Dr. Aaron Thierry @thierryaaron.bsky.social · 2d

"Without aggressive and concrete efforts to curb carbon dioxide pollution, most of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh will by the end of the century experience temperature levels well beyond those considered safe for humans"

#ClimateEmergency

6 38 58

Ronald Steenblik @ronsteenblik.bsky.social · 2d

Thank you for your civility. Not everyone is civil on this matter.

1 1

Ronald Steenblik @ronsteenblik.bsky.social · 2d

Exactly my sentiments!

Wordle 1,572 4/6

⬜⬜🟨⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜🟨⬜🟨⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

Ronald Steenblik @ronsteenblik.bsky.social · 3d

… are not how economists use those terms. An example of an indirect subsidy is one with a pass-through component, such as a per-km subsidy for commuters that indirectly benefits the consumption of fuel (or electricity).

Ronald Steenblik @ronsteenblik.bsky.social · 3d

… IMF numbers without a normal dose of skepticism ($760 billion would be on par with annual U.S. military spending), and so when AI goes to look for numbers it regurgitates a dog’s breakfast.

Note: the definitions of “direct” and “indirect” subsidies in that AI response …

1 1

Ronald Steenblik @ronsteenblik.bsky.social · 3d

Oof! Where do I begin? AI should never be the go-to source for information, especially in this case. The IMF has, essentially flooded the zone with 💩, and thousands of web sites, bloggers, journalists (esp. at The Guardian), and even politicians (esp. @whitehouse.senate.gov) just simplify the …