SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Supriya Kumar, skumar@worldwatch.org, (+1) 202-452-1992, ext. 510
Total subsidies for renewable energy stood at $66 billion in 2010, but are still dwarfed by the total value of global fossil fuel subsidies estimated at between $775 billion and more than $1 trillion in 2012, according to new research conducted by the Worldwatch Institute (www.worldwatch.org) for its Vital Signs Online service. Although the total subsidies for renewable energy are significantly lower than those for fossil fuels, they are higher per kilowatt-hour if externalities are not included in the calculations, write report authors from Worldwatch's Climate and Energy team.
Estimates based on 2009 energy production numbers placed renewable energy subsidies between 1.7C/ and 15C/ per kilowatt-hour (kWh), while subsidies for fossil fuels were estimated at around 0.1-0.7C/ per kWh. Unit subsidy costs for renewables are expected to decrease as technologies become more efficient and the prices of wholesale electricity and transport fuels rise.
The production and consumption of fossil fuels add costs to society in the form of detrimental impacts on resource availability, the environment, and human health. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences estimates that fossil fuel subsidies cost the United States $120 billion in pollution and related health care costs every year. But these costs are not reflected in fossil fuel prices.
"These so-called hidden costs, or externalities, are in fact very real costs to our societies that are not picked up by the polluter and beneficiary of production but by all taxpayers," said Alexander Ochs, Director of Worldwatch's Climate and Energy program and report co-author. "Local pollutants from the burning of fossil fuels kill thousands in the U.S. alone each year, and society makes them cheaper to continue down their destructive path."
Shifting official support from fossil fuels to renewables is essential for decarbonizing the global energy system. Such a shift could help create a triple win for national economies by reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, generating long term economic growth, and reducing dependence on energy imports.
According to projections by the International Energy Agency (IEA), if fossil fuel subsidies were phased out by 2020, global energy consumption would be reduced by 3.9 percent that year compared with having subsidy rates unchanged. Oil demand would be reduced by 3.7 million barrels per day, natural gas demand would be cut by 330 billion cubic meters, and coal demand would drop by 230 million tons of coal. And the effects of the subsidy removal would extend beyond the end of the phaseout period. By 2035, oil demand would decrease by 4 percent, natural gas by 9.9 percent, and coal demand by 5.3 percent, compared with the baseline projection.
Overall, carbon dioxide emissions would be reduced by 4.7 percent in 2020 and 5.8 percent in 2035. The IEA's chief economist recently estimated that eliminating all subsidies in 2012 for coal, gas, and oil could save as much as Germany's annual greenhouse gas emissions each year by 2015, while the emission savings over the next decade might be enough to cover half of the carbon savings needed to stop dangerous levels of climate change.
"At the same time, a phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies would level the playing field for renewables and allow us to reduce support for clean energy sources as well," said Ochs. "After all, fossil fuels have benefited from massive governmental backing worldwide for hundreds of years."
Progress toward a complete phaseout, however, has been minimal. The 2009 pledge by the Group of 20 major economies to reduce "inefficient fossil fuel subsidies" has been left vague and unfulfilled. The lack of a definition has left countries to make their own determination if their subsidies are inefficient. As of August 2012, G20 countries had not taken any substantial action in response to the pledge----six members opted out of reporting altogether (an increase from two in 2010), and no country has yet initiated a subsidy reform in response to the pledge. Furthermore, there continues to be a large gap between self-reported statistics and independent estimates in some countries.
Some argue that reducing subsidies would disproportionately affect the poor. An IEA survey of 11 developing and emerging countries, however, found that only 2-11 percent of subsidies went to the poorest 20 percent of the population, showing that subsidies tend to be regressive.
Fossil fuel subsidies continue to far outweigh support for renewable energy. Although independent reporting on these subsidies has increased, global efforts to move forward with subsidy reform have been hindered by a variety of causes, leaving international pledges unfulfilled.
Further highlights from the report:
The Worldwatch Institute was a globally focused environmental research organization based in Washington, D.C., founded by Lester R. Brown. Worldwatch was named as one of the top ten sustainable development research organizations by Globescan Survey of Sustainability Experts. Brown left to found the Earth Policy Institute in 2000. The Institute was wound up in 2017, after publication of its last State of the World Report. Worldwatch.org was unreachable from mid-2019.
"White supremacist and antidemocratic movements have always used the claim that so-called Black savages are coming to destroy, especially when political power is up for grabs," said one critic. "This is no different."
U.S. vice presidential candidate JD Vance and other Republicans including congressional lawmakers and Elon Musk, the billionaire owner of the X social media platform, were excoriated Monday for spreading unsubstantiated rumors that Haitian immigrants are killing and eating pets and park wildlife in an Ohio town.
Vance, who is also the junior U.S. senator from Ohio,
wrote Monday on X—formerly known as Twitter—that "months ago, I raised the issue of Haitian illegal immigrants draining social services and generally causing chaos all over Springfield, Ohio."
"Reports now show that people have had their pets abducted and eaten by people who shouldn't be in this country," he added. "Where is our border czar?"
Haitians were also accused of killing and eating ducks and geese in the city's Snyder Park. However, a photo
purportedly showing a Haitian immigrant walking down a Springfield street carrying a dead bird was actually of an American and was taken in Columbus, Ohio—nearly 50 miles away.
The cat rumor originated nearly 100 miles away in Canton, Ohio, where a mentally ill woman—also an American—was
arrested last month for allegedly killing and eating a cat.
During a July Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee hearing, Vance read a letter from Springfield City Manager Bryan Heck, a Republican, highlighting some of the challenges faced by municipal officials struggling to accommodate thousands of Haitian immigrants.
Nowhere in the letter are pet-eating Haitians mentioned. Both Heck and Springfield police officials have
refuted the rumor.
"We wish to clarify that there have been no credible reports or specific claims of pets being harmed, injured, or abused by individuals within the immigrant community," Heck
toldThe Hill. "Additionally, there have been no verified instances of immigrants engaging in illegal activities such as squatting or littering in front of residents' homes."
By the time mainstream media outlets began debunking the rumor, it had already gone viral. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)
posted a meme showing two scared kittens with the caption, "Pease vote for Trump so Haitian immigrants don't eat us."
Musk, meanwhile,
reposted an AI-generated meme published by House Judiciary Committee Republicans showing Trump hugging animals with the caption, "Protect our ducks and kittens in Ohio!"
Many observers reacted with disgust to the rumor-spreading Republicans.
"In MAGA world, the alleged pet-eating is already a matter of fact, and Republican elected officials, including Vance, are hurrying to join the clout rush, the scramble to get attention and likes and followers by treating it as a serious issue," wroteWashington Post columnist Philip Bump.
"This is a central reason that Vance and others on the right are susceptible to being described as 'weird,'" Bump added. "There's an online world in which things get taken to the nth-degree because its economy rewards that sort of hyperbole. But then these obsessions and claims are taken out of that bubble and presented to everyone else and they don't hold up. What else can you do but marvel at how strange it all is?"
Erik Crew, staff attorney at the Haitian Bridge Alliance, an advocacy group,
toldThe Hill that "this is the same old anti-Black playbook that we've seen for hundreds of years in Ohio being rolled out to divide and create hate, especially around election times."
Crew continued:
White supremacist and antidemocratic movements have always used the claim that so-called Black savages are coming to destroy, especially when political power is up for grabs. This is no different. This time they are saying it is Haitians, and this time it is being used to try to score political points around immigration as well.
The fact is Haitian immigrants have been coming to Springfield seeking to come and contribute to U.S. democracy and the economy, and Springfield and Ohio will benefit from that like U.S. communities have benefited in the past from Black immigrants' contributions.
"The fact is the rumors about Haitians in Springfield and pets have already been debunked, but we won't stop hearing them because certain people will want to keep spreading them as the election nears," he added.
Dave Zirin, sports editor at
The Nation, was more blunt in his reaction.
"You are a racist piece of shit," he
wrote to Vance on X. "You lie like Trump without an inkling of his twisted charisma."
The lawsuit was filed "to vindicate the fundamental democratic and constitutional rights to free speech, free assembly, and due process against overreach by university authorities," the text said.
Students and staff at the University of California, Santa Cruz launched a lawsuit against the school on Monday for barring them from campus without due process after they were arrested at a pro-Palestinian protest in the spring.
The lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Foundation of Northern California, the Center for Protest Law & Litigation, and civil rights attorney Thomas Seabaugh, is demanding that the University "cease summarily banishing" people who exerciser their First Amendment rights as the new academic year beings.
"The bans were incredibly punitive and profoundly unfair," Rachel Lederman, senior counsel with the Center for Protest Law & Litigation, said in a statement. "They went into effect on the spot, instantly cutting students and faculty off from classes, jobs, and other school resources, such as meal plans and healthcare. On-campus residents were rendered homeless. Academic performance suffered."
"It's time to hold UCSC accountable for its illegal use of Section 626.4 campus bans against students and faculty as a tool of censorship."
One impacted student was Elio Ellutzi, a plaintiff and undergraduate who was not only made homeless and cut off from their campus job, they were forced to the miss a pre-scheduled doctor's appointment and delay treatment until the fall.
"It was terrible to miss that appointment and be cut off from my home, the library, and my notes," Ellutzi said. "This all happened during final exams and, even though I had been on the honor roll for the last two quarters, I struggled to complete my coursework and my grades really suffered."
Fellow plaintiff and UCSC undergraduate Laaila Irshad also suffered academically.
"I was a resident assistant living and working in campus housing, so the ban was devastating," Laaila said. "I failed my school courses as I could not access my computer, attend classes, or complete assignments."
The bans were issued to more than 100 students and faculty members who were arrested on the night of May 30, when the university called in more than 100 police officers to clear the school's Palestine solidarity encampment.
Everyone arrested that night was banned from campus under section 626.4 of California's Penal Code, which allows a university to withdraw its consent for an individual's presence on campus for up to two weeks. However, in order for a university to make use of the code, it must first either hold a hearing or decide that an individual poses "a substantial and material threat." Neither criteria were met in the case of those arrested in May, in violation of both state and federal law.
Chessie Thacher, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, said the bans were "unconstitutional and overbroad, depriving students and faculty of their due process rights."
The lawsuit explained further:
The campus police, acting under defendants' direction, handed out identical one-page Section 626.4 notices to arrestees. The officers handed out so many of these form notices en masse that they eventually ran out of paper and resorted to verbally informing students and faculty of the ban. Some people were also purportedly banned without getting either written or verbal notice. No hearing or opportunity to be heard was provided before any of these bans went into effect. No individualized findings were made about how, post-arrest, "the continued presence" on campus of each summarily banned person presented "a substantial and material threat of significant injury to persons or property."
The notices were also handed out after an arrest experience that was harrowing in and of itself, according to first-hand testimony from plaintiffs.
Christine Hong, a professor of critical race and ethnic studies, said she had gone to the encampment on May 30 to support her students:
When I arrived, I saw a line of officers advancing in militarized formation, moving forward, then stopping, and waiting before continuing their slow march down to the base of campus until they were just two to three feet in front of the line of students. From that point forward, they repeatedly attacked us in waves of violence. The police used their batons to force us so tightly into each other that some protesters were dry heaving from the batons being thrust violently into their organs. When students tried to move the batons away from their stomachs, they were ordered to stay still and bear the pain. The person next to me was later hospitalized for their injuries. In what appeared to be their efforts to pluck off protesters for arrest, officers in full riot gear were unrestrained in their violence, including grabbing people by the neck. One person sustained injuries so severe that they suffered neurological damage and now walks using a cane.
Once arrested, both Hong and Irshad described spending time in police vans with their hands tightly zip-tied and no chance to access facilities.
Irshad recalled:
I was arrested at 6:00 am, while other protesters remained on-site into the morning, still without basic necessities. We were then handcuffed tightly with zip ties and loaded into vans, where static radio blared at deafening volumes. When we pleaded for relief, the volume was increased, and when I asked to use the restroom, I was met with scorn and laughter. It was a shock to be treated so cruelly simply for exercising my right to protest.
The lawsuit stated that it was filed "to vindicate the fundamental democratic and constitutional rights to free speech, free assembly, and due process against overreach by university authorities."
"It's time to hold UCSC accountable for its illegal use of Section 626.4 campus bans against students and faculty as a tool of censorship," Seabaugh said in a statement. "Our clients did not engage in conduct that posed a threat of significant injury to anyone or anything. Banning them on the spot was not just heavy-handed, it was unconstitutional and a violation of basic democratic rights and academic freedoms. We're suing to ensure that in the coming school year, UCSC officials comply with the law and respect the constitutional limits on their power to ban students and faculty from campus."
"No one is really OK with a corporation lying to consumers. What jumps out here is the overwhelming agreement among voters that it's deceptive and wrong for companies to label a product as recyclable when it's not."
Most U.S. voters would support officials in their state taking legal action against the plastics and fossil fuel industries for creating plastic pollution, based on evidence that they misled the public about the viability of recycling their products, according to a poll released Monday.
The poll, conducted by Data for Progress and the Center for Climate Integrity, follows a report CCI released in February that showed decades of industry deception about the recyclability of plastics and a yearslong, ongoing investigation by the California attorney general, which could lead to a lawsuit.
The poll indicates that 70% of voters support such a lawsuit and even 54% of Republicans do so.
"Regardless of your politics, no one is really OK with a corporation lying to consumers," Davis Allen, a CCI researcher, said in a statement. "What jumps out here is the overwhelming agreement among voters that it's deceptive and wrong for companies to label a product as recyclable when it's not."
Allen's colleague Alyssa Johl, a CCI vice president, argued that the poll bolsters the case that attorneys general should pursue lawsuits against industry for its role in creating plastic waste and deceiving the public about recycling.
"As we're watching to see what comes from California's investigation, it's clear that the public is very concerned about the plastic waste crisis and would support holding Big Oil and the plastics industry accountable for the fraud of plastic recycling," she said. "Any attorney general or public official who is considering action on this issue should know that both the law and public opinion are on their side."
📣 New poll from us & @DataProgress:
The vast majority of U.S. voters — including 54% of Republicans — support legal action against Big Oil & the plastics industry for lying about the viability of plastic recycling and causing the plastic waste crisis. https://t.co/YFjmxzeOYT pic.twitter.com/0oHAMHPtem
— Center for Climate Integrity (@climatecosts) September 9, 2024
The survey, conducted on 1,231 web panel respondents, also included a number of other plastics-related questions. More than two-thirds of respondents, after being prompted with information during the course of the survey, said the plastics industry should have "a great deal of responsibility" to address the plastic crisis, while 59% said the same about the fossil fuel industry. The industries are in fact connected; almost all plastics are made out of fossil fuels.
More than 60% of respondents strongly agreed—and 85% agreed at least "somewhat"—that it was deceptive to put the "chasing arrows" symbol on products that were not in fact recyclable. California restricted the practice with a 2021 law, and the Federal Trade Commission is revising its guidelines following recommendations issued last year by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which said the use of the symbol can be "deceptive or misleading."
The poll showed that Americans tend to overestimate the amount of plastic being recycled. The average respondent guessed that about 45% of plastic gets recycled, when in fact a 2021 Greenpeace report indicated that the real figure is about 6%.
Despite the negative impacts of plastic waste, plastic production continues to increase worldwide. About 220 million tons of plastic waste are expected to be generated this year alone. Last week, a study in Nature, a leading journal, estimated global plastic waste emissions at about 52 million metric tons per year.
Recycling plastic is logistically challenging because many products are made of composites of different types of plastic and because the quality of the material goes down with each generation of use.
The poll comes out during the final stages of negotiations on a global plastics treaty, which has been in the works for several years. Ahead of United Nations General Assembly meetings this week, a group of celebrities including Bette Midler called for strong action on plastics in an open letter published by Greenpeace.
The final global plastics treaty negotiations will be held in Busan, South Korea starting November 25. The previous major round of negotiations, in April, was dominated by corporate lobbyists, advocates said. Activists and Indigenous leaders were also left out of a smaller meeting in Thailand last month, drawing criticism.
The call for accountability for plastics producers comes as the fossil fuel industry already faces legal action for its role in perpetuating the climate crisis. Dozens of cities and states have filed suits. None has yet reached the trial stage. The one that is closest to doing so, City and County of Honolulu v. Sunoco et al., has been the subject of political and legal wrangling, with the industry trying to have the suit dismissed.