Globally, explicit (or fiscal) fossil fuel subsidies were $725 billion in 2024. Implicit subsidies, primarily underpricing of environmental costs, were $6.7 trillion, with three quarters from underpriced air pollution and climate change
Source: ILikeNeurons
2 Comments
> Explicit subsidy removal would reduce CO2 emissions by six percent below baseline levels in 2035, avoid 70,000 premature air pollution deaths annually, raise 0.6 percent of GDP in government revenue, and generate net economic benefits worth 0.5 percent of GDP. Removal of both explicit and implicit subsidies (through corrective taxes) generates substantially larger benefits, such as 1.1 million fewer premature air pollution deaths and a 46 percent reduction in CO2 emissions, but would be politically difficult.
This is why it’s so important to [optimize our climate actions](https://jointheshift.earth).
In the US we likely face the need for congress to act. The obvious solution to me is something I call an atmospheric use fee (as opposed to a carbon tax). Basically it’s a royalty paid by polluters to release harmful gasses into the atmosphere. All revenue minus 1 or 2% for administrative collection costs would be sent to Americans equally as royalty checks every month. If you just priced carbon appropriately it would generate about $10k per household or over $3k per individual every year. It would be net financially beneficial for about 80% of Americans. If you added appropriate fees for all other pollutants it could generate even more revenue and higher payments. It would be the first tax in history the public would want to see increase over time.