The climate advocacy group 350.org and other activists are launching a 24-hour “Twitterstorm” Monday to get as many messages over the social media site as possible using the hashtag #endfossilfuelsubsidies.
Their goal is to break the record for the most identical social media messages sent over a 24 hour period. According to fan sites and other reports, it currently belongs to Bieber fans who jointly tallied 322,224 of the same messages for Bieber on his 18th birthday in early March.
Just imagine over 322,000 echoes reverberating the identical message for 24 hours. I’ll be needing some aspirin.
04/10/2011 – Governments and taxpayers spent about half a trillion US dollars last year supporting the production and consumption of fossil fuels. Removing inefficient subsidies would raise national revenues and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, according to OECD and IEA analyses.
Why are they doing this? The OECD and the IEA say, “Removing inefficient subsidies would raise national revenues and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, according to OECD and IEA analyses.” But the removal of subsidies reduces the expenditure of revenues. Spending less does not mean your salary or in this case your revenue increases. It just means you have freed up some of your revenue to spend elsewhere or save for a rainy day.
OECD’s, IEA’s and the G20’s intent is to remove subsidies which will decrease exploration and supply of fossil fuels thereby increasing the costs of those fuels and those increases will ripple throughout the world’s economies at a time when people are already making choices between food, shelter and energy to heat or cool their homes.
During the last century the world has used fossil fuels to increase efficiencies in farming. As a result the global population grew at an alarming rate because the abundance of food allowed the population to grow. Global population is still increasing today — so much so that the Chinese government restricts the number of births per family.