1⃣ So, once again, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has posted their biennial update of what they call "explicit" and "implicit" #FossilFuelSubsidies — and once again, those estimates are being misinterpreted and misrepresented. Long explanatory 🧵:

@ClaireBerlinski Claire: you have 4 likes to this message. Come on back to Blue Sky and abandon this propoganda site. Blue Sky's membership is exploding (now 15 million users and growing fast), and engagements are much higher, more intelligent, and generally constructive.

@LaurentFranckx @aredonda I’m almost exclusively over on BlueSky now. I check back here once a day, but rarely engage. Sorry!

@CarbonBrief @orladwyer_ @DrRashidSumaila @xAlan_Matthews Thanks for promoting our 2022 report, but last month we updated our estimates of EHS, increasing them for fossil fuels, adding subsidies to plastics, and adjusting the estimates to $$s of 2024 — bringing the total to $2.6 trillion. Link:

Hey, @Grantham_IC, fossil fuel subsidies were not $7 trillion in 2022 (which would be 3X global military expenditure), but $1.3 trillion. The rest of that IMF number you use refers to externalities from the combustion of fossil fuels. (See my 📌ed tweet.)

RT @davidfickling: How did the US invent solar power and dominate it for 60 years, before giving it up to China over the past decade? The…

@VangelisVNZ In all seriousness, the IMF folks — starting with its Managing Director, @KGeorgieva — could be making a better effort to correct misconceptions and misrepresentations of their numbers. USD 7 trillion is THREE TIMES global military spending.

@autofac @amywestervelt There's a collective action problem, though. A producer with resources that would not cost much to exploit has more scope. But, ultimately, countries who see O&G production as a cash cow are often victims of asymmetric information when bargaining with corps over profit-sharing.

@CKWeatherill The rest ($5.7 trillion) represents the IMF's rough estimates of the under-taxation of fuels and electricity. And of that $5.7 trln, some $1.2 trln are "vehicle externalities", like traffic congestion, that would be just as large if all ICE vehicles were to be replaced by EVs.

@autofac @amywestervelt It doesn’t. Rather, it can be seen as IMF’s estimate of how much more the 🌍’s consumers of fossil fuel and electricity should be paying in the form of higher prices and carbon & pollution taxes. That’s a lot tougher message than “The 🌎 can afford it: just shift the subsidies!”

@AdamMinter @opinion Can I encourage you to create an account on BlueSky? It’s much less toxic, and seems to have a reasonably high proportion of serious people.

@DmitryOpines Selling vehicles to the Russians doesn’t count as violating U.S. sanctions?! Or are these ones that have been manufactured at Tesla plants in China?

RT @LaurentFranckx: "The update report estimates current environmentally harmful subsidies at least $2.6 trillion, equivalent to 2.5% of g…

@commondreams Thx for the article on our report. Note: some subsidies do benefit corporations. But a big chunk (especially to fossil fuels) are in the form of artificially low consumer prices for energy, particularly in energy-exporting countries, and for water. Re the IMF, see my 📌ed tweet.

@ProfBillMcGuire As co-author of the report, I'd put it slightly differently. Yes, some subsidies benefit corporations. But a big chunk (especially to fossil fuels) are in the form of artificially low consumer prices for energy, particularly in energy-exporting countries, and for water.

@ThomasPogge As a professional working on the topic, I do not agree with rebranding externalities as "indirect subsidies" (which already has a different, specific meaning). See my 📌ed tweet. I do, however, agree we should be talking about environmental externalities, which are >>$5.3 trln.