<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>mikeash</author><text>It’s an unconventional way to use “subsidy,” but I think it fits.&lt;p&gt;Imagine a garbage company. The government pays them so they can buy land where they dump their garbage. Obviously a subsidy.&lt;p&gt;Now, let’s say the government buys the land themselves then gives it to the company for dumping. No money changes hands but this is still pretty clearly a subsidy.&lt;p&gt;Instead of giving the company land, the government retains ownership, but lets the company dump there for free. Still a pretty clear subsidy.&lt;p&gt;Instead of buying the land, the government just takes it. Now no money is involved at all, but it’s still a subsidy.&lt;p&gt;Instead of taking the land, the government just declares that it’s legal for the garbage company to dump trash on other people’s land, and the owners just have to deal with it. This is quite different in the details from the original subsidy, but the overall effect is essentially the same.&lt;p&gt;Polluters are in a situation that’s exactly like this last scenario. They get to dump their trash on everyone’s property and don’t have to pay for the privilege. They’re being subsidized in an amount equal to whatever payment it would take to get everyone to willingly accept this trash.</text><parent_chain><item><author>tryitnow</author><text>A few things:&lt;p&gt;1) That&amp;#x27;s not what was spent, it&amp;#x27;s what this paper projected was spent.&lt;p&gt;2) I think this paper is defining subsidy in a way that we don&amp;#x27;t usually use that word.  They&amp;#x27;re calling the costs associated with anthropogenic climate change and pollution &amp;quot;subsidies&amp;quot;, most people would just call those things &amp;quot;costs.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Using the word &amp;quot;subsidy&amp;quot; implies that governments are actively taking tax dollars and giving it to fossil fuel companies and consumers.  That doesn&amp;#x27;t appear to be what&amp;#x27;s going on for the most part.&lt;p&gt;Look at Figure 4, the bulk of the so-called &amp;quot;subsidies&amp;quot; are &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;local pollution&amp;quot; those aren&amp;#x27;t what most people would call subsidies, they&amp;#x27;re costs.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m saying this just to clarify things, personally I am supportive of massive tax increases on carbon and massive  subsidies for renewables.</text></item><item><author>tito</author><text>USD$5.2 trillion was spent globally on fossil fuel subsidies in 2017&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.imf.org&amp;#x2F;en&amp;#x2F;Publications&amp;#x2F;WP&amp;#x2F;Issues&amp;#x2F;2019&amp;#x2F;05&amp;#x2F;02&amp;#x2F;Global-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Remain-Large-An-Update-Based-on-Country-Level-Estimates-46509&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.imf.org&amp;#x2F;en&amp;#x2F;Publications&amp;#x2F;WP&amp;#x2F;Issues&amp;#x2F;2019&amp;#x2F;05&amp;#x2F;02&amp;#x2F;Glo...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;hey fossil fuels, let&amp;#x27;s 1v1&amp;quot;
sincerely, solar&lt;p&gt;(From Forbes: United States Spend Ten Times More On Fossil Fuel Subsidies Than Education)</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Solar and Wind Power So Cheap They’re Outgrowing Subsidies</title><url>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-09-19/solar-and-wind-power-so-cheap-they-re-outgrowing-subsidies</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>reitzensteinm</author><text>The use of the word subsidy is a sleight of hand to double count the environmental impact of fossil fuels.&lt;p&gt;Not penalizing harmful externalities is bad policy. Subsidizing them is lunacy.</text><parent_chain><item><author>tryitnow</author><text>A few things:&lt;p&gt;1) That&amp;#x27;s not what was spent, it&amp;#x27;s what this paper projected was spent.&lt;p&gt;2) I think this paper is defining subsidy in a way that we don&amp;#x27;t usually use that word.  They&amp;#x27;re calling the costs associated with anthropogenic climate change and pollution &amp;quot;subsidies&amp;quot;, most people would just call those things &amp;quot;costs.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Using the word &amp;quot;subsidy&amp;quot; implies that governments are actively taking tax dollars and giving it to fossil fuel companies and consumers.  That doesn&amp;#x27;t appear to be what&amp;#x27;s going on for the most part.&lt;p&gt;Look at Figure 4, the bulk of the so-called &amp;quot;subsidies&amp;quot; are &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;local pollution&amp;quot; those aren&amp;#x27;t what most people would call subsidies, they&amp;#x27;re costs.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m saying this just to clarify things, personally I am supportive of massive tax increases on carbon and massive  subsidies for renewables.</text></item><item><author>tito</author><text>USD$5.2 trillion was spent globally on fossil fuel subsidies in 2017&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.imf.org&amp;#x2F;en&amp;#x2F;Publications&amp;#x2F;WP&amp;#x2F;Issues&amp;#x2F;2019&amp;#x2F;05&amp;#x2F;02&amp;#x2F;Global-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Remain-Large-An-Update-Based-on-Country-Level-Estimates-46509&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.imf.org&amp;#x2F;en&amp;#x2F;Publications&amp;#x2F;WP&amp;#x2F;Issues&amp;#x2F;2019&amp;#x2F;05&amp;#x2F;02&amp;#x2F;Glo...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;hey fossil fuels, let&amp;#x27;s 1v1&amp;quot;
sincerely, solar&lt;p&gt;(From Forbes: United States Spend Ten Times More On Fossil Fuel Subsidies Than Education)</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Solar and Wind Power So Cheap They’re Outgrowing Subsidies</title><url>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-09-19/solar-and-wind-power-so-cheap-they-re-outgrowing-subsidies</url></story>