Yes, the headline here qualifies as a truism, which means that the claim is so obvious as to not be questioned.

Even climate change activists—at least most of us—like cheap gas, although not on principle, of course. We likely don’t think about it beyond the visceral reaction we have at the filling station when gas prices jump, just like the vast majority of our fellow citizens. Some politicians may secretly wish for price spikes if this can help them attack the opposition, and maybe newspaper headline writers and other news media like high gasoline prices, judging from the amount of ink/radio/television/web spent on this subject whenever there’s a jump in the cost of filling a gas tank; gas prices are practically a sport the way the cost index gets followed.

And who can blame a guy for wanting to spend less on what continues to be an essential need for work, shopping, and the overall pursuit of happiness? We’ve built an economy and culture that holds fossil fuels as a foundational element. In America, as of 2022, there are 290.8 million registered vehicles and there are 74.3 million children and the total population of America, as of December 22, 2022, is 333,287,557, which means that there is 1¼ vehicles per American adult. Of course, only a tiny percentage of such vehicles are currently electric vehicles, and of that modest number, the electricity to charge the vehicle most likely currently (sorry) comes from fossil fuel-driven (sorry) power generation.

This is easy math, and, admittedly, a bit simple in its broad strokes. Tracking the fall and rise of gasoline prices is easy math, too, typically nothing more complicated than adding and subtracting triple digit numbers, although the decimal point can throw off some of us. If you really want a bigger math challenge when it comes to counting decimal points and keeping track of commas, try comprehending the size of fossil fuel subsidies worldwide any given year. Take this past year, for example, and take the total amount of subsidies going to fossil fuels reported by The International Monetary Fund, which last time I looked, was not one of the fringe “environmental” organizations: $5.9 trillion dollars.

Yes, that is trillion with a “T.” A recent piece on Medium, “The Myth of Ending Fossil Fuels ~ Why Climate Change Will Only Worsen Fast,” by @RunSocialist, published on July 7, reports this number, although the number is not hard to find. I’ve been looking at the IMF reports on fossil fuel subsidies for some time, considering that Book Two of my The Steep Climes Quartet, Dear Josephine, takes place a half-dozen years from now when the U.S. Congress is considering taking some of the subsidies away from the fossil fuel industry. It turns out that such action is to the detriment of some supporting politicians who suffer at the hands of Big Oil for their troubles, and hey, if you can’t use one of the great environmental wrongs of the past century-plus to aid a snappy plot point….

The IMF report is simply staggering, and staggering on several points beyond the sheer dollar numbers. There is the question of subsidies being granted to century-and-a-half old industry, for example, along with the irony of the broadsides of politicians whose invectives against “wasteful” solar or other renewable energy subsidies or economic incentive programs are almost as loud as the IMF’s report of fossil fuel subsidies totals are high, and which occur every year, mind you.

There is a  lot to unpack in the IMF report, and the most significant point is that the lion’s share of what IMF includes in subsidies are the estimates of the real costs for externalities, including climate change consequences and pollution. But is letting fossil fuel industries not pay for the damages their business cause a subsidy?

Well, here is how Investopedia defines subsidy:

A subsidy is a benefit given to an individual, business, or institution, usually by the government. It can be direct (such as cash payments) or indirect (such as tax breaks). The subsidy is typically given to remove some type of burden, and it is often considered to be in the overall interest of the public, given to promote a social good or an economic policy.

So, yeah, subsidy is the right word for removing the burden for fossil fuel producers’ dumping greenhouse gases from fossil fuel use into the commons of the atmosphere, and ditto for the resulting pollutants, long-tied to significant and widespread health consequences.

Another point that makes the understanding of fossil fuel subsidies complicated include odd (as in, not available to most other industries) accounting permissions that have large benefits for fossil fuels businesses, and then, of course, there are other and various tax breaks that account for some of the fossil fuel subsidies, but we’d need AI to help explain them.

The main point here is that fossil fuel prices are kept low and kept low because it is politically dangerous for the actual costs of producing fossil fuels to be carried by the producers because the producers are going to pass those costs to you in the very noticeable form of higher gas prices at the pump.

The problem is that we are already paying higher prices, just not in obvious terms such as gas prices. The annual $5.9 trillion in fossil fuel subsidies comes from, in large part, you and other Americans. Your increases in home insurance premiums, energy costs, and the cost of food and health are all higher these days—and getting higher yet—because of adverse climate change. We are all guilty of participating in climate change activity to some degree (well, except for 3 or so billion humans holding the shit end of the stick). There are clear winners of fossil fuel subsidies and the fantastic profits of the major oil companies are first among equals here, although as climate change stresses our very lives, perhaps that low price per gallon isn’t such a great prize after all. Here’s one other line @RunSocialist quotes from the recent IMF report that we best keep in mind while congratulating ourselves for the price at the pump: [Subsidies] are not well targeted at the poor, mostly benefiting higher income households…

Don’t let the author’s byline put you off his argument. Yes, “@RunSocialist” isn’t a compelling association for most Americans, and the guy only has three followers on Medium so far, but I’m grateful to see the issue of fossil fuel industries subsidies raised.

With climate change (and our own health, too), it turns out that we are paying a hell of a lot for that gallon of gas. Something to think about as you are getting in your car heading out of your most recent heatwave towards your favorite green vacation spot.