Source: Environmental Law Institute
One of the most persistent arguments coming from those who oppose renewable energy subsidies is that they could never stand on their own without government intervention and that we should let the market decide which electricity source is best. A complete analysis of the problems with that argument are beyond the scope of this post, but one thing that is too often overlooked is the fact that fossil fuels receive a tremendous amount of federal support, an amount that has traditionally dwarfed the supports given to renewables like solar, wind and geothermal.
The above graphic circulated around the internet last fall and I apologize if you have seen it enough, however, it stands as an important reminder of where we were and how far we need to go for true parity in the marketplace. And while the feds have ramped-up investment in renewables and President Obama has proposed eliminating federal subsidies for fossil fuels in his 2011 budget, the billions of dollars spent on securing and protecting our oil interests in the Middle East means that the federal energy subsidy scales will likely still tip in favor of the fossil fuel industry for the foreseeable future.
So next time you hear the argument that renewables cannot stand on their own without massive tax subsidies, remember this graphic.
Follow Timothy B. Hurst on Twitter: 
Would be nice if you told us, which country you are talking about…
The United States.
great image! i’ve been wanting to see someone put that out in such a form (didn’t seen this before now). great stuff. such an unacknowledged issue
If you show it as subsidy dollars per kilowatt produced, what does the graph look like?
It may be hard to quantify, but it would also be interesting if you counted uncompensated social, environmental and health damage as a subsidy. If you think about it, it is a sort of subsidy.
Zufechten-
You make a valid point about making a comparison based on the amount of subsidy per unit of energy produced. I’m working on finding something…
But what I was really trying to show was that fossil fuels are not only cheap because the market dictates the price, there are healthy federal subsidies keeping the fossils going… And as I mention in the piece (and you allude to in your comment), the graph doesn’t really capture the social costs of fossil fuels.
Thanks for your comment!
Is Nuclear energy included in the renewable or fossil fuel category? It is my understanding that they receive huge subsidies as well.
Anthony, it’s my impression that nuclear is not included in the graphic for whatever reason.