The fossil fuels industry pays extremely high tax rates on their profits and has for decades (Exxon and Chevron typically average near 35%, among the highest corporate tax rates anywhere). They've been subsidizing the research into renewables for a very long time.
While I agree there should be zero subsidies for fossil fuels, the corporate taxes they've paid drastically outweigh the modest subsidies the fossil fuel corporations have received. The only way that isn't the case, is if one includes extremely fuzzy environmental damage estimates (in which case nearly every industry that has ever existed has been theoretically massively subsidized).
> The fossil fuels industry pays extremely high tax rates on their profits and has for decades (Exxon and Chevron typically average near 35%, among the highest corporate tax rates anywhere).
And yet they have still been doing more than fine for all these decades, they still do really good.
> modest subsidies the fossil fuel corporations have received
"Modest" is an odd word to use considering that subsidies come in more forms than straight up sending money to a company, companies can also be subsidized by taxing them less on certain behavior by weighting factors differently, like on long-term environmental impacts [0].
I've seen a way more detailed breakdown of this issue before in another study, but I just can't find it anymore.
