User:Dms152/sandbox

Definition
Subsidization research suggests that negative externalities within resource extraction should be factored into the pricing, subsidization and taxation of biofuels. Under this recommendation, resource extraction would be taxed at a rate that would account for inefficient market outcomes and equalize social and environmental impacts of dirty fuels (oil, coal etc.). This theory falls under the Pigovian tax which attempts to limit the impact of negative externalities on societies and governments. Common Pigovian taxation systems within society include sugar, alcohol and tobacco taxes to offset social costs and burdens on the healthcare system. An exemplary rate of tax or subsidy according to green economists should result in a net private product being equal to the net marginal social product (I.e. products created through private industry should cost them the same as the social and environmental impacts of that product). Some theorists suggest that taxation should affordably offset negative externalities while simultaneously paying for increasing return industries rather than promoting liberalist economics. As stated by Cheng and Zhang “The tax on the dirty good serves to both correct the externality from pollution and direct more resources to the increasing return industry, thus it is higher than the Pigovian tax”.

Criticism of Contemporary Subsidisation Policy
Although no real global databases for fossil-fuel subsidies exist on a global scale, researchers suggest that dirty subsidies are allowed by governments through political pressure from beneficiaries of subsidies and complexity within subsidy programs globally (Stefanski). Stefanski’s work on fossil fuel subsidization estimates that global government’s subsidies equalled 983 billion dollars (US) in 2010. According to researchers of government public policy, subsidization of biofuels makes a few incorrect assumptions. Firstly, government subsidization does not provide incentives to reduce utilization of polluting technology; therefore this form of subsidization contains no mechanism for progressive change in the future. Secondly, dirty subsidies and tax credits can require a vast amount of public expenditure and allow for people to use these products without subsidizing it themselves (known as free-rider problem). Green economists argue that contemporary forms of taxation which focus on offsetting social and environmental costs have not reached a sustainable rate within the biofuel industry. The argument instead suggests that governments are actively subsidizing and incentivizing biofuels that waste resources, as they do not accurately account for these negative externalities and do not incentivize companies to be more efficient. Stefanski concludes that real GDP in 2010 was 3.8 percent lower due to subsidization of fossil fuels. As he suggests, this subsidization on fossil fuels are potentially more damaging than climate change’s effect on real GDP.

- It seems difficult to find where citations are coming from with many Wikipedia pages, I realise now that it is important to delete content rather than leaving potential plagiarist works. - Everything in the article seems to be more or less relevant although the page is more of a definition rather than a full outline of the concept. - There is no citation for the last paragraph which states an opinion ( "although the notion of a "cost" is so political as to render this phrase almost meaningless") therefore it seems important to either delete altogether or rephrase it in a manner that does not give off a biased opinion. The bias is not noted in the article - There are no citations at all for the whole encyclopedic article - There is a lot that could be added. It seems that the page only loosely defines the concept, therefore it would be important in the future to add a discussion on the introduction of full cost accounting into policy regarding subsidies. A chronological timeline of the introduction of the theory into mainstream politics might help track the emergence of dirty subsidy as a mainstream ideology -The article is not yet rated, it has no stars or significant Wikipedia publication. -There has yet to be a discussion on the talk page, no comments have been made on who wrote the two paragraphs found on the page

A dirty subsidy is a payment or incentive by a government to a private corporation (or another level of government) that encourages waste of raw materials, natural resources, or energy, or results in pollution or other human health hazards.

Green economics often focuses on the impact of eliminating such subsidies, and implementing what is sometimes called full-cost accounting although the notion of a "cost" is so political as to render this phrase almost meaningless. Green politics focuses on actually eliminating the subsidies by seeking change to agricultural policy and industrial policy, as well as tax, tariff and trade rules that favor imports from jurisdictions that offer such subsidies. Copied from dirty subsidy