How much in subsidies do fossil fuels get anyway?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


At least some members of the Obama administration plan to call for an end to fossil-fuel subsidies as part of next week's G20 economic leaders summit, citing positive impacts ranging from improved energy security to combating climate change. But how much does the U.S. government pay? Well, according to a new analysis from the Environmental Law Institute released today, roughly $72 billion between 2002 and 2008.

More than $54 billion of that was in the form of 23 different tax credits for oil, coal and natural gas producers, including those overseas, most of which are permanent provisions of the U.S. Tax Code. Just $18.3 billion was grants and other direct cash for research and development and other pursuits, such as the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Renewables such as wind, solar and hydropower received nearly $29 billion in all, much of it also in the form of tax credits although, in this case, credits that expire after set durations. And more than half of the renewable subsidy—$16.8 billion—went to the production of ethanol from corn, a controversial biofuel that can cut into food supplies and has significant environmental consequences, including greenhouse gas emissions and expanded dead zones from fertilizer runoff.

"The vast majority of federal subsidies for fossil fuels and renewable energy supported energy sources that emit high levels of greenhouse gases when used as fuel," the report's authors write. "These figures raise the pressing question of whether scarce government funds might be better allocated to move the United States toward a low-carbon economy."

Of course, not all fossil fuel subsidies are bad in that regard: research into carbon capture and storage, which garnered $2.3 billion, may be the key to preventing catastrophic climate change while we continue to burn coal. And there's a missing link, as well: nuclear energy, because electricity derived from fission is neither a fossil fuel nor renewable. But it is, once operating, a power source without carbon dioxide emissions.

Image: © iStockphoto.com / Andrew Penner

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe