Although many countries have explicitly promised to reduce fossil fuel subsidies to combat climate change, this has proven difficult to accomplish. As a result, fossil fuels remain relatively inexpensive, and their use and greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow.

I work in environmental and energy law and have studied the fossil fuel sector for years. Here’s how fossil fuel subsidies work and why they’re so stubborn.

What is a subsidy?

A subsidy is a financial benefit given by a government to an entity or industry. Some subsidies are relatively obvious, such as publicly funded crop insurance or research grants to help pharmaceutical companies develop new drugs.

Others are less visible. A tariff on an imported product, for example, can subsidize domestic manufacturers of that product. More controversially, some would argue that when a government fails to make an industry pay for damage it causes, such as air or water pollution, that also amounts to a subsidy.

Subsidies, especially in this broader sense, are widespread throughout the global economy. Many industries receive benefits through public policies that are denied to other industries in the same jurisdiction, such as tax breaks, relaxed regulations or trade supports.

Governments employ subsidies for political and practical reasons. Politically, subsidies are useful for striking bargains or shoring up political support. In democracies, they can mollify constituencies otherwise unwilling to agree to a policy change. The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, for example, squeaked through Congress by subsidizing both renewable energy and oil and gas production.

Practically, subsidies can boost a promising young industry such as electric vehicles, attract business to a community or help a mature sector survive an economic downturn, as the auto industry bailout did in 2008. Of course, policies can outlive their original purpose; some of today’s petroleum subsidies can be traced to the Great Depression.

How are fossil fuels subsidized?

Fossil fuel subsidies take many forms around the world. For example:

• In Saudi Arabia, fuel prices are set by the government rather than the market; price ceilings subsidize the price citizens pay for gasoline. The cost to state-owned oil producers there is offset by oil exports, which dwarf domestic consumption.

• Indonesia also caps energy prices, then compensates state-owned energy companies for the losses they bear.

• In the United States, oil companies can take a tax deduction for a large portion of their drilling costs.

Other subsidies are less direct, such as when governments underprice permits to mine or drill for fossil fuels or fail to collect all the taxes owed by fossil fuel producers.

Estimates of the total value of global fossil fuel subsidies vary considerably depending on whether analysts use a broad or narrow definition. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD, calculated the annual total to be about US$1.5 trillion in 2022. Tche International Monetary Fund reported a number over four times higher, about $7 trillion.

Why do estimates of fossil fuel subsidies vary so dramatically?

Analysts disagree about whether subsidy tabulations should include environmental damage from the extraction and use of fossil fuels that is not incorporated into the fuel’s price. The IMF treats the costs of global warming, local air pollution and even traffic congestion and road damage as implicit subsidies because fossil fuel companies don’t pay to remedy these problems. The OECD omits these implicit benefits.

But whichever definition is applied, the combined effect of national policies on fossil fuel prices paid by consumers is dramatic.

Oil, for example, is traded on a global market, but the price per gallon of petrol varies enormously around the world, from about 10 cents in Iran, Libya and Venezuela – where it is heavily subsidized – to over $7 in Hong Kong, the Netherlands and much of Scandinavia, where fuel taxes counteract subsidies.

What is the world doing about fossil fuel subsidies?

Global leaders have acknowledged that subsidies for fossil fuels undermine efforts to address climate change because they make fossil fuels cheaper than they would be otherwise.

In 2009, the heads of the G20, which includes many of the world’s largest economies, issued a statement resolving to “rationalize and phase out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption.” Later that same year, the governments of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, or APEC, made an identical pledge.

In 2010, 10 other countries, including the Netherlands and New Zealand, formed the Friends of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform group to “build political consensus on the importance of fossil fuel subsidy reform.”

Yet these commitments have scarcely moved the needle. A major study of 157 countries between 2003 and 2015 found that governments “collectively made little or no progress” toward reducing subsidies. In fact, the OECD found that total global subsidies nearly doubled in both 2021 and 2022.

So why are fossil fuel subsidies hard to eliminate?

There are various reasons fossil fuel subsidies are hard to eliminate. Many subsidies directly affect the costs that fossil fuel producers face, so reducing subsidies tends to increase prices for consumers. Because fossil fuels touch nearly every economic sector, rising fuel costs elevate prices for countless goods and services.

Subsidy reform tends to be broadly felt and pervasively inflationary. And unless carefully designed, subsidy reductions can be regressive, forcing low-income residents to spend a larger percentage of their income on energy.

So, even in countries where there is widespread support for robust climate policies, reducing subsidies can be deeply unpopular and may even cause public unrest.

The 2021-22 spike in fossil fuel subsidies is illustrative. After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, energy prices surged throughout Europe. Governments were quick to provide aid for their citizens, resulting in their largest fossil fuel subsidies ever. Forced to choose between climate goals and affordable energy, Europe overwhelmingly chose the latter.

Of course, economists note that increasing the price of fossil fuels can lower demand, reducing emissions that are driving climate change and harming the environment and human health. Seen in that light, price spikes present an opportunity for reform. As the IMF noted, when prices recede after a surge, it “provide[s] an opportune time to lock in pricing of carbon and local air pollution emissions without necessarily raising energy prices above recently experienced levels.”

Bruce Huber, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

America’s military veterans make up about 6% of the adult population but account for about 20% of all suicides. That means that each day, about 18 veterans will die by suicide.

In the U.S., the overall rate of suicide has largely increased since the start of the millennium, but veterans are disproportionately represented among this tragic trend.

Each of these losses affects not only the individual but also their families, friends and co-workers. Thus, working to prevent suicide and its underlying causes is important not only to protect our loved ones but also to foster happier, safer communities.

We are a team of researchers at Arizona State University’s Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety. We manage the Arizona Violent Death Reporting System, a surveillance system sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and part of the larger national surveillance system that operates in all U.S. states, Puerto Rico and Washington. We gather information on suicides through agreements with the Arizona Department of Health Services, medical examiners and law enforcement.

Assessing risk amid uncertainty

Military veterans range from 18 years of age to more than 100, include both men and women, and represent diverse races and ethnicities. As of 2018, the largest veteran cohort were those who served during the Vietnam War, followed by those who served during peacetime only, the Gulf War and post-9/11 conflicts.

Identifying the true risk of veteran suicide, especially relative to the general population, is a surprisingly difficult task. In past decades, researchers and stakeholders debated about which figures were most accurate, those showing veterans at increased risk or those showing the opposite. Such debates often stemmed from methodological factors.

However, mounting evidence shows that veterans need targeted suicide prevention services, and our data backs this up. From 2015 to 2022, the age-adjusted suicide rates among male veterans in Arizona outpaced those of nonveterans by a factor of 1.49 to 1.88. Put another way, while veterans in Arizona made up only 8.4% of the population in 2022, they represented 20.3% of the state’s suicides, meaning veterans were 2.5 times more likely to die by suicide.

While these numbers stem from Arizona, they also reflect the national trends showing greater and growing rates of suicide among veterans.

Why are veterans at greater risk?

One reason is that, compared to nonveterans, a greater proportion of veterans are white, male and older – demographic categories with elevated rates of suicide in the general population. For example, in Arizona, about 97% of veteran suicides between 2015 and 2022 were men, compared with 75% in the comparable nonveteran population.

Other explanations relate to veteran-specific factors. Some argue that military training and combat exposure can reduce a person’s fear of pain or death, putting suicidal veterans at greater risk of completing suicide. Military training also familiarizes a person with the use of firearms, a particularly lethal means of suicide. Statistics show that veterans, including female veterans, die by suicide using firearms more so than the general population. This tendency to use firearms as the method of suicide leads to more fatal suicide attempts.

At the Arizona Violent Death Reporting System, we collect data on circumstances that precede and may have contributed to suicide, which can help identify risk factors. While we’ve found that veterans often exhibit fewer such factors overall, certain demographic categories do display risk factors.

For example, a higher proportion of veterans ages 18 to 54 had a diagnosed mental health problem – primarily post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. In addition, more male veterans ages 65 and older had physical health problems that contributed to their suicide compared with similar nonveterans.

This highlights the need to encourage veterans to share their mental or physical health struggles with others, which will prevent veterans from struggling alone. Large-scale initiatives are trying to tackle this issue, but we can also raise awareness and reduce stigma around suicide on a local level.

Shining a light on the problem

In 1999, then-Surgeon General Dr. David Satcher highlighted suicide as a serious public health crisis, paving the way for tackling the monumental issue on a national scale.

Now, 25 years later, the U.S. government continues to emphasize the increasingly dire situation. Most recently, the Biden administration released a 2024 national strategy aimed at establishing strategic directions for improving mental health treatment and reducing suicide.

Historically, health care facilities operated by the Veterans Health Administration have been a central resource for veterans experiencing mental or physical problems. This continues to be true: While the overall population of veterans is decreasing, the number of veterans who seek resources from the organization has increased. Encounters between veterans and the Veterans Health Administration offer opportunities to screen for suicide risk and offer resources for those in need.

Crisis lines are a potentially effective means of prevention. For example, the Veterans Crisis Line has been shown to reduce a caller’s immediate distress and suicidality. Many callers have found the crisis line helpful, with responders providing both effective intervention and compassionate support.

Education and policy provide another means of suicide prevention. As firearms are a particularly lethal means of suicide, a great deal of research funding has gone toward understanding their role in suicide. Studies generally find that reducing access to guns is associated with reduced suicide rates. As a result, both general and veteran-specific suicide prevention efforts highlight the importance of handling guns safely and storing them securely.

If you know a military veteran, keep an eye out for warning signs of mental distress, which may display in a person’s words, feelings or behavior.

For example, they may display intense anxiety, agitation or desperation, or express a sense of hopelessness. Veterans diagnosed with depressive syndrome, PTSD or both may be at greater risk.

For a person who is considering suicide, even the slightest hope can mean the difference between life and death.

If you or someone you know is experiencing signs of crisis, the free and confidential 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline is available to call, text or chat.

If you are a veteran and would like to speak with responders trained to understand your unique circumstances, call 988 and then press 1.

Jordan Batchelor, Research Analyst at the Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety, Arizona State University; Charles Max Katz, Director of the Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety, Arizona State University, and Taylor Cox, Program Coordinator, School of Criminology & Criminal Justice, Arizona State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.