Food & Water Watch and Food & Water Europe have released a new report today exposing the US government’s strategy and tactics to promote biotech around the world.

The report concludes with the recommendation that all countries should have the right to establish their own acceptance of biotech crops and foods free from U.S. interference, and suggests how the State Department should approach agricultural development to put the interests of other countries before the interests of the biotech seed companies.

The report contributes to national legislative struggles to protect farmers, consumers and the environment, and to negotiations of the EU-US trade agreement and Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Biotech Ambassadors: Diplomacy or Marketing?

By Food & Water Watch and Food & Water Europe

Washington, D.C., and Brussels—Today Food & Water Watch and its European project Food & Water Europe released the first comprehensive analysis of the U.S. government’s strategy, tactics and foreign policy objectives to promote pro-agricultural biotechnology policies worldwide. Biotech Ambassadors: How the U.S. State Department Promotes the Seed Industry’s Global Agenda examines more than 900 State Department diplomatic cables from 2005 to 2009 and details how the U.S. State Department lobbies foreign governments to adopt pro-agricultural biotechnology policies and laws, operates a rigorous public relations campaign to improve the image of biotechnology and challenges commonsense biotechnology safeguards and rules — including opposing genetically engineered (GE) food labeling laws.

“The U.S. Department of State is selling seeds instead of democracy,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch and author of the book Foodopoly: The Battle Over the Future of Food and Farming in America, which looks at corporations’ growing influence over food policy, launching in Europe this week. “This report provides a chilling snapshot of how a handful of giant biotechnology companies are unduly influencing U.S. foreign policy and undermining our diplomatic efforts to promote security, international development and transparency worldwide. This report is a call to action for Americans because public policy should not be for sale to the highest bidder.”

“An overwhelming number of farmers in the developing world reject biotech crops as a path to sustainable agricultural development or food sovereignty,” said Ben Burkett, President of the National Family Farm Coalition, a U.S. member of the international peasant farmer organization, La Via Campesina. “The biotech agriculture model using costly seeds and agrichemicals forces farmers onto a debt treadmill that is neither economically nor environmentally viable.”

The State Department’s efforts impose the policy objectives of the largest biotech seed companies on often skeptical or resistant governments and their citizens, and exemplifies thinly veiled corporate diplomacy. Of the 926 diplomatic cables analyzed, 7 percent mention specific biotech companies and 6 percent mention Monsanto specifically. The State Department promoted the commercialization of specific seeds, acted to quash public criticism of particular companies and facilitated negotiations between foreign governments and seed companies like Monsanto over issues like patents and intellectual property. This corporate diplomacy was nearly twice as common as diplomatic efforts on food aid, which was mentioned in only 4 percent of the cables.

“It’s not surprising that Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer and Dow want to maintain and expand their control of the $15 billion global biotech seed market, but it’s appalling that the State Department is complicit in supporting their goals despite public and government opposition in several countries,” said Ronnie Cummins, executive director of Organic Consumers Association. “American taxpayer’s money should not be spent advancing the goals of a few giant biotech companies.”

Food & Water Watch’s report delineates the State Department’s charm offensive to promote biotech crops and pro-biotech policies, often in close collaboration with the biotech seed companies. The report provides a detailed account of the State Department’s participation at nearly 170 agricultural biotech conferences and events, sponsorship or coordination of 17 junkets for journalists and opinion-makers, and other ways that the agency uses its diplomatic prestige and bully pulpit to pressure foreign governments to adopt pro-biotechnology policies and products.

“This report provides yet another distressing example of how Monsanto and its ilk have a stranglehold over the global food supply and how it does everything it can — including influence U.S. diplomacy — to silence people who only want to make informed choices about the food they feed their families,” said Pamm Larry, a leader of the U.S. national grassroots movement to label GE foods and the initial instigator of Proposition 37, a California ballot initiative to label genetically engineered foods that was narrowly defeated at the polls last November. “As we fight for the mandatory labeling of GE foods here in the U.S., it’s important that we also shed light on the ways that the pro-GE seed agenda is being forced upon other countries — because knowledge is power.”

The report closely examines the State Department’s role in promoting biotech seeds in the developing world, where many nations have not approved GE crops. Despite the high cost of biotech seeds and the associated agrichemicals, the State Department has been pressuring countries to adopt policies that would give the biotech seed companies a beachhead in the developing world. The report examines the State Department’s role in lobbying the governments of Kenya, Ghana and Nigeria to pass pro-biotech laws.

“The State Department should not be flexing its diplomatic muscle to impose biotech crops on the developing world,” said Hauter. “Today, the U.S. government is secretly negotiating major trade deals with Europe and the countries of the Pacific Rim that would force skeptical and unwilling countries to accept biotech imports, commercialize biotech crops and prevent the labeling of GE foods. This madness must stop; the U.S. government should not be a shill for the largest biotech seed companies.”

The report concludes with the recommendation that all countries should have the right to establish their own acceptance of biotech crops and foods free from U.S. interference, and suggests how the State Department should approach agricultural development to put the interests of other countries before the interests of the biotech seed companies.

Download the report here:
US version
EU version

- Action Camp in Finnish North Karelia Starting 18 June 2013.

Talvivaaras’ nickel-uranium mine has caused the most serious environmental damages in the finnish history in decades. The mine has been continuously polluting the amazing waterscapes of eastern Finland. More and more people and organizations are demanding closing of the mine and the locals can’t use water from several lakes anymore, but it doesn’t seem to have any impact in a country where the finance elite knows that the government is in their service.

The eco-disaster in the Talvivaara mine is not a rare exception: rather,
it is business as usual wherever large mining corporations are operating.
For the surrounding areas, polluted groundwater has been the price to pay
for every single uranium mine in the world so far. Despite this, a number
of projects for opening huge mines are underway in Finland and Sweden.

Disregarding the cost to the ecosystem or the opposition of locals,
the international elite has decided to sacrifice the Nordic flora, fauna
and waters to fuel the growth-compulsive economy.

Determined resistance is needed to keep the environment viable. Join us to
share knowledge and skills, and to act!

The camp is located ca. 30 km from the Talvivaara mine. The first week of
the camp, we will share info about the mining situation in the north and
explore tactics for open direct action. These skills will be put to use
during the second week.

More info & updates coming at turvaverkosto.wordpress.com

Feel free to offer your own program! The camp will work in a
self-organized manner, so participants are expected to do their share of
running the camp. To cover costs we ask for a donation of 5-10 € per day,
taking into account people’s personal economic situations. Rides from more
accessible locations will be arranged as often as possible. When signing
up for the camp, please contact us if you would want a ride or have any
other special needs, allergies etc.

Let us know you’re coming by mailing turva@riseup.net before 10th of June,
if possible!

TURVA - Action network against uranium industry
turvaverkosto.wordpress.com

Hyökyaalto network (Rising Tide Finland)
hyokyaalto.org

Friends of the Landless Finland
http://maattomienliike.wordpress.com/

KINSHASA/GENEVA (8 May 2013) – Serious violations of human rights and
international humanitarian law were committed in November 2012 during
fighting between government forces and rebels of the Mouvement du 23 mars
(M23) over the town of Goma in North Kivu province in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo and during the subsequent retreat of the Congolese
Armed Forces (FARDC) to South Kivu province, a UN report has found.

The report by the United Nations Joint Human Rights Office (UNJHRO)*
details victim and witness accounts of mass rape, killings and arbitrary
executions, and violations resulting from widespread looting. It noted that
particularly systematic and violent abuse was committed by some FARDC
elements as they retreated from the towns of Goma and Sake in North Kivu
province and regrouped in and around the town of Minova in South Kivu.

The UN investigation documented 135 cases of sexual violence perpetrated by
FARDC elements in and around the town of Minova as units retreated from the
front lines. The victims included 33 girls aged between 6 and 17. FARDC
soldiers entered houses, looted them, and raped the women and girls they
found inside, and in many cases committed additional acts of physical
violence.

During the period of their occupation of Goma and Sake, M23 combatants also
perpetrated serious violations of international humanitarian law and gross
human rights violations. Rebel combatants of the M23 were responsible for
at least 59 cases of sexual violence. The UN investigation also documented
at least 11 arbitrary executions, recruitment of children, forced labour,
cruel inhuman and degrading treatment and looting by M23 combatants.

Poor discipline among soldiers and officers alike may be partly explained
by the repeated integration of former rebels into the national army without
adequate training, and by the lack of appropriate vetting mechanisms. The
M23 leadership is also well-known for its worrying human rights record. The
violations outlined in the report may constitute international crimes under
human rights law, as well as crimes under Congolese criminal law.

“Those responsible for such crimes must know that they will be prosecuted,”
said UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay. “The people of the
DRC have endured an intolerable level of violence in recent years. In
particular, the sexual violence outlined in this report is horrifying, both
in its scale and systematic nature. Recent efforts made by the DRC
authorities to investigate these violations in North and South Kivu are an
important step towards accountability. But much more needs to be done to
ensure justice for the victims and to re-establish the confidence of the
civilian population in the Congolese justice system,” she added.

In December 2012, a judicial investigation was launched, supported by
MONUSCO, the UN mission in the DRC, and other partners. As of the end of
March 2013, 12 senior officers had been suspended in relation to the Minova
incidents while the investigation by Congolese justice authorities is
ongoing.

“I welcome the measures taken so far by the Congolese authorities,
including the decision to suspend senior officers allegedly connected to
the mass rapes,” said Special Representative of the Secretary General
(SRSG) in the DRC, Roger Meece. “The UN continues to offer its support to
both the judicial investigation and the Congolese armed forces However, for
this support to be continued, the ongoing investigation should be pursued
in an independent and credible fashion, and justice should be delivered to
the victims. Future efforts to reform the security sector must include a
systematic verification of the human rights records of combatants and their
commanders in order for the Congolese army to fully ensure the protection
of civilians.”

* The UN Joint Human Rights Office, which was established in February 2008,
comprises the Human Rights Division of the UN Stabilization Mission in the
DRC (MONUSCO) and the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in
the DRC.

Deputy Minister Iván Lanegra plans to quit in the next few days due to controversy over entitlement of the right to prior consultation by Andean peoples.

Tania Pariona, young quechua leader of the Ñuqanchick organization, told Reuters that indigenous peoples should decide their own forms of development.

Lima, May 1st 2013 (Reuters/By Mitra Taj and Teresa Cespedes).- Peru’s mining minister is winning a crucial cabinet battle by swaying President Ollanta Humala to water down a law that gives indigenous groups more say over new mines and oil projects – and a deputy minister will likely resign in protest.

According to half a dozen people with direct knowledge of the internal tug-of-war, Mines and Energy Minister Jorge Merino has prevailed in excluding Quechua-speaking communities in the mineral-rich Andes from being covered by the law.

Sources said he fears applying the law throughout the highlands – as the government once said it planned to do – would delay a pipeline of mining investments worth $50 billion.

Several people in Merino’s office declined repeated requests by phone and email for comment.

The tussle underscores a quandary facing Peru, one of Latin America’ fastest-growing economies: how to develop its vast mineral wealth while also addressing a legacy of inequality from its colonial past.

The “prior consultation law,” which Humala touted during his 2011 campaign as a salve for widespread conflicts over natural resources, requires companies to negotiate agreements with indigenous communities before building new mines or oil wells around their lands.

It does not give the communities the power to veto a project, but miners have said it could snarl approvals for new mines for everything from gold to lead.

“Merino has realized that with this law the government was shooting itself in the foot,” an industry source said.

Eva Arias, the head of the country’s association of mining firms, was more diplomatic.

“We hope the law isn’t politicized. It could be a tool to forge consensus and development … otherwise it could slow investments,” she told reporters.

Foreign investment in mining has traditionally powered Peru’s fast-growing economy. Sources from the private sector and government said the debate over how to apply the new law has pitted the mining and finance ministries against the ministries of culture, environment and social inclusion.

Ivan Lanegra, a deputy minister for culture charged with implementing the law, plans to quit over the changes as soon as this week, two well-placed sources said.

“Merino seems to have won,” said a former cabinet chief close to the controversy, adding the changes might worsen the tensions between towns and firms the law aimed to prevent.

“I think this is a big mistake and we will all pay at the end of the day,” the source said. “When these communities get angry they are going to attack the mines under their noses.”

Humala has reshuffled his cabinet twice since taking office after anti-mining protests turned violent.

Quechua – the language of the Incan empire – is spoken by an estimated 3 million to 5 million people in Peru. The Quechua are the most numerous and widespread of about 50 indigenous groups in Peru.

Denial of Rights?

Lanegra maintains the law should cover Andean Quechua-speaking communities because they are “indigenous” – with a unique language and culture, and shared use of land.

Merino’s position is that the Quechua should not be considered “indigenous” under the law because they mixed with Spanish colonizers centuries ago, often have formal town assemblies, and are less isolated than Amazon tribes.

Quechua activists say they view themselves as indigenous.

“We don’t want to be invisible anymore. We want the right to say ‘this is what we want in terms of development,’” said Tania Pariona, a Quechua leader from the Ayacucho region.

Quechua towns have often been called “peasant communities” since an agrarian reform in the 1970s, but tribes in the Amazon – which holds most of Peru’s oil and gas fields – are referred to as “indigenous” or “native.”

Peru’s human rights office said “peasant communities” hold about 19 percent of all land and “native communities” 9 percent.

Humala, speaking on TV on Sunday, seemed to endorse Merino’s stance.

“In the highlands there are mostly agrarian communities … indigenous communities are mostly in the jungle,” Humala said.

“The spirit of the law is to give voice to communities that don’t have one,” Humala said. “These days few communities lack an official like a mayor that links them to the government.”

Humala’s position may further frustrate critics who say he abandoned parts of the left that voted for him and cuddled up to big business after taking office.

“It’s not about vulnerability or cultural ‘purity,’ but ‘cultural difference,’” Lanegra said days before Humala spoke.

“Quechua are indigenous. There is no way around it,” under Peru’s law and the U.N. pact on indigenous rights, Lanegra said.

Case-by-case basis

Lanegra also wanted exploratory mining projects to adhere to the law, but last week the government exempted 14 of them.

“If there is no exploration there is no mining,” said Merino on local TV station Canal N. “We have to stay competitive, otherwise we’ll see investments go somewhere else.”

Mining makes up some 60 percent of Peru’s export earnings, though domestic spending has driven the country’s impressive 6 percent annual growth rates in recent years.

More than 20 countries have ratified the U.N. pact on indigenous rights, and officials regard Peru as the first to codify a prior consultation law.

After taking office, Humala signed the law in 2011 in the jungle town of Bagua, where a clash between police and Amazon tribes killed 33 people in 2009, hurting President Alan Garcia, whose term was marked by some 200 deaths in protests.

Humala at the time specifically mentioned the Quechua as a group that would be covered by the law.

At least 24 people have died in social conflicts so far during Humala’s administration – mainly over natural resources.

Many towns fear mining will pollute, use up scarce water supplies, or fail to bring enough jobs and tax revenues.

Nearly 1.5 years since Congress passed the law, Peru is now leaning towards determining if a community is eligible for coverage on an ad-hoc basis.

“The registry of indigenous peoples will develop as time goes by,” Prime Minister Juan Jimenez told Reuters last week.

(Additional reporting by Patricia Velez and Terry Wade; Editing by Mary Milliken and Philip Barbara)

Top UN climate change official Christiana Figueres said that it is ‘no longer necessary’ for the World Bank to rely on coal in its energy projects, saying that the organization should now focus on bringing alternative energy sources forward.

Figureres commended World Bank Director Jim Yong Kim on his commitment to climate action and acknowledged that coal has understandably played an important role in past energy development projects. She went on to say, however, that it is time for the World Bank to move on from coal.

Figueres said:
“It is one of the very serious challenges that the World Bank has, and it’s very understandable, because [coal] was a fuel that was critically important to developing countries at a certain stage in their development. So the fact that the bank has a portfolio of investment in coal is understandable from a historical perspective. …it is no longer necessary to do that, because we have many other technologies that can come forward.”

Her remarks come as the World Bank draws criticism for its support of a new coal power plant in Kosovo. Director Jim Yong Kim has defended the project because of unmet energy needs in the area, but many have challenged Kim’s assumption that coal power is a solution – including Kosovars.

Citing the alarming health consequences of coal, Kosovar activists have launched a major public health campaign against the new power plant through ads on national television and social media outlets, as well as a light projection on the World Bank building in Washington D.C. Opponents believe that Kosovo’s energy needs can be met more safely and effectively through greater energy efficiency and modest renewable energy projects.

Figueres, like the Kosovar activists, is highlighting the discrepancy between the World Bank’s commitment to mitigating climate change and its continued support for coal – one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the world, as well as an enormous burden on public health and the environment.

As an international funding organization, a decision from the World Bank to halt funding for coal would be a powerful statement of its decreasing viability as an energy source.

READ: Where Fossil Fuels Come From?

Wer die Petition gegen die Privatisierung von Wasserrechten unterschreiben möchte, bitte:
HIER

Hintergrundinformationen:

Die EU-Kommission will den Markt für die Privatisierung der Wasserrechte freigeben. Monitor hat darüber am 13.12. eine Sendung ausgestrahlt “Geheimoperation Wasser: Wie die EU-Kommission Wasser zur Handelsware machen will.”
lesen

“Nestlé-Verwaltungsratschef Peter Brabeck-Letmathe macht kein Geheimnis daraus, dass Wasser in seinen Augen kein öffentliches Gut sein sollte, sondern einen Marktwert wie jedes andere Lebensmittel auch benötige” (Stern)
YOUTUBE VIDEO – ansehen und zuhören

Der Organisator der Petition “Wasser ist ein Menschenrecht” möchte bis kommenden September 1 Million Unterschriften sammeln:
lesen

Kommentar Earth Peoples:
Bedenkt dass Wasserknappheit und der Preis für Mineralwasser gehen Hand in Hand mit Fracking.

Insgesamt besitzt Nestlé ca 8.000 Marken. Hier sind einige von denen, die Ihr in den Supermarktregalen sehen könnt - und in den Naturkostläden. Ihr könnt mehr in diesem Wikipedia-Eintrag zu finden: “Liste der Nestlé-Marken”. Natürlich gibt es viele Produkte, die den Namen Nestlé gar nicht erst benennen, wie die folgenden:

GETREIDE: Cluster, Cookie Crisps, Golden Grahams, Crunch, Nesquik
KAFFEE: Internationale Roast, Nescafe, Taster Choice
WASSER: Poland Spring, S. Pellegrino, Calistoga
Andere Getränke: Nestea (w / Coca-Cola als Partner), Nelke, Nesquik wieder, Libby, Juicy Juice
UND: Coffee-Mate
ICE CREAM: Edy, Haagen-Dazs
BABY FOOD: Gerber
PERFORMANCE ERNÄHRUNG: PowerBar
HEALTHCARE NUTRITION: Carnation Instant-Frühstück
SEASONINGS: Buitoni
TIEFKÜHLKOST: Stouffer der, Lean Cuisine, Buitoni, Hot Pockets, Lean Pockets, DiGiorno Pizza
Gekühlte Produkte: Toll House
CHOCOLADE: Baby-Ruth
TIERFUTTER: Alpo, Beneful, Fancy Feast, Mighty Dog, Pro Plan, Purina, Tidy Cats

und die letzte Leckerbissen:
• Nestlé besitzt 30% der weltweit größte Kosmetik-und Beauty Firma L’Oréal und seine Marken wie Garnier, Maybelline, Lancôme und sowie die The Body Shop Filialen

Antarctic ice melting at record rate, study shows
The evidence comes from a 364-metre ice core containing a record of freezing and melting over the previous millennium

Read entire article at: The Guardian

DOWNLOAD REPORT:
EU ETS myth busted

NGO report busts the myths of the Emissions Trading Scheme

Why it must be replaced with direct action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

Brussels, April 16th– The European Parliament will vote today on the European Commission’s proposal to backload 900 million emissions permits within the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS). This vote assumes the EU ETS can be reformed, but ahead of the vote, a new report shows that the problems of the EU ETS are systemic and unresolvable. Keeping this failed system in place would further delay real action to reduce emissions in Europe.

The report “EU ETS myth busting: why it can’t be reformed and shouldn’t be replicated”, has been published by several signatory organisations[1] from the “Time to scrap the ETS” declaration. It looks at a number of claims made in defence of the EU ETS and shows why they are not valid.

A key myth is that is that the EU ETS has reduced greenhouse gas emissions. The slight decrease in emissions from 2008 and 2010 was in fact related to the economic crisis. There has been no real shift in the way energy is produced or used by industry. The EU ETS is incapable of triggering the transformation and regulatory actions necessary for a sustainable and just path that could be achieved through clear direct policies, explains the report.

“The vote on backloading is the wrong debate. No amount of structural tinkering will get away from the fact that the EU has chosen the wrong tool to reduce emissions in Europe. It is inherently too weak to get the EU to where it needs to be in the necessary timescale. To achieve its goal of keeping the increase in global warming within two degrees centigrade, itself totally inadequate, the EU can no longer wait for the market to deliver,” says Hannah Mowat from FERN.

Another myth busted in the report is that the EU ETS is a flexible and cost-effective tool to reduce emissions. “The question is, cost effective for whom? Businesses have managed to make windfall profits by passing costs onto consumers from permits to pollute which they got free of charge. In Phase I and II this was put down to market teething problems, but seven years on, these issues remain and are getting worse”, states Belén Balanyá, from Corporate Europe Observatory.

The report also pulls to pieces the idea of the EU ETS as an incentive to promote investment in cleaner energy solutions. It states that due to the massive over-allocation of permits, businesses have ensured that polluting has continued to be the cheapest option, and therefore, no noticeable investments were made in clean technologies or low-carbon solutions as a result of the ETS.

“The EU must acknowledge that the ETS experiment has not worked. Trying to fix this scheme will in fact close the door to effective and fair climate policies. We need to replace it with real action that will bring about a just transition away from fossil fuel dependence and that leaves future generations with a fair chance of avoiding uncontrollable climate change”, says Lyda Fernanda, from Transnational Institute.

There are three major forms of fossil fuels: coal, oil and natural gas. All three were formed many hundreds of millions of years ago before the time of the dinosaurs – hence the name fossil fuels. The age they were formed is called the Carboniferous Period. It was part of the Paleozoic Era. “Carboniferous” gets its name from carbon, the basic element in coal and other fossil fuels.

The Carboniferous Period occurred from about 360 to 286 million years ago. At the time, the land was covered with swamps filled with huge trees, ferns and other large leafy plants, similar to the picture. The water and seas were filled with algae – the green stuff that forms on a stagnant pool of water. Algae is actually millions of very small plants.

Some deposits of coal can be found during the time of the dinosaurs. For example, thin carbon layers can be found during the late Cretaceous Period (65 million years ago) – the time of Tyrannosaurus Rex. But the main deposits of fossil fuels are from the Carboniferous Period.
For more about the various geologic eras, click here.

As the trees and plants died, they sank to the bottom of the swamps of oceans. They formed layers of a spongy material called peat. Over many hundreds of years, the peat was covered by sand and clay and other minerals, which turned into a type of rock called sedimentary.

More and more rock piled on top of more rock, and it weighed more and more. It began to press down on the peat. The peat was squeezed and squeezed until the water came out of it and it eventually, over millions of years, it turned into coal, oil or petroleum, and natural gas.

By Derek Wong

Did you know our governments spend money subsidizing fossil fuel energy to keep prices artificially low? A new International Monetary Fund study uncovers just how much these subsidies are and urge our governments to stop these market distortion practices. I calculate the real price we pay for fossil fuel energy and the results are astonishing.

The release of the study by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is widely covered by mainstream media around the world in the New York Times,Washington Post, Financial Times, and in a particularly good analysis from the Wall Street Journal. I looked at the data in the full report focusing on the Canadian portion. With additional data provided to me by the IMF Washington office, I was able to do some further calculations. The energy subsidies are higher than I expected. In fact, far higher.

What the general public is mostly unaware of is the prices we pay for energy are subsidized prices. When we pay $50 at the gas pump, the gas we got is actually worth more than $50. When we pay $100 for our hydro bill, the energy we used is actually worth more than $100. Why’s that? It’s because the government financially subsidizes the energy we use. They have been doing this for years. But most of the general public are not aware of this. The energy prices we consumers see are below market levels.

You might think: Isn’t that great? The government is paying for part of my gas! Let’s trace it backward, where does the government get their money to subsidize your gas? That’s from government revenues. Where does the government get their revenues? Mostly from taxes. The federal government of Canada get more than 80 percent of their revenue from two sources: income taxes and consumption taxes (source: StatsCan). Who pay the government those incomes taxes and consumption taxes? That’s the taxpayers. You get the picture … it’s you. The gas you get from the pump is paid partly by you at the gas station. The other part of the cost is also paid by you, but indirectly through the withholding tax from your paycheque and through the GST you pay when you go shopping.

And this is the part I’ve always wondered: What’s the real price of the energy we use? Are the energy subsidies large or small? What’s the fully loaded energy price compared to the ‘sticker price’? This is a very complicated calculation as multiple levels of federal, provincial, and commercial players are involved. But thanks to the economists at the International Monetary Fund who did an extensive study on this subject, we now have some good data.

According the IMF study and the additional data they provided to me, Canada used $26 billions to subsidize energy in 2011. The Canadian government’s revenues were $665 billion in that year. In other words, 4% of the government revenues were spent on energy subsidies. (Note that the IMF calculation uses U.S. dollar, but the Canadian dollar was at virtual parity with the U.S. dollar over the year of 2011, with $1 USD equalled $0.989 CAD).

Let’s put these numbers into more relatable context. How much energy subsidies were made for each person? According to StatsCan the Canadian population was 33,476,688 in 2011. That works out to be a whopping $787 of energy subsidies for each Canadian for the year. This is a far higher number than I expected. On average each Canadian paid $787, mostly through our income tax and GST, for our energy in 2011 and probably a similar amount year after year. Remember, this is on top of the payments we make at the gas pumps and through our hydro bills. For a family of four, this amounts to over three thousand dollars per year spent invisibly on energy.

With this in mind, are fossil fuels really that much cheaper than renewable energies? The IMF cites many downsides to putting so much public money into subsidies and keeping energy prices—at least the ‘sticker prices’—artificially low, not least of which is giving the false impression to the general public that fossil fuels are much cheaper than renewable energy. Subsidies distort resource allocation by encouraging excessive energy consumption, artificially promoting capital-intensive industries, reducing incentives for investment in renewable energy, and accelerating the depletion of natural resources.

According IMF First Deputy Managing Director David Lipton, removing these subsidies worldwide could lead to a 13 percent decline in CO2 emissions and generate positive spillover effects by reducing global energy demand. It would also strengthen incentives for research and development in energy-saving and alternative technologies. That’s the reason the IMF is urging governments the world over to reform subsidies for products from coal to gasoline, arguing that this could translate into major gains both for economic growth and the environment.

So next time you hear someone say they prefer fossil fuel to renewable energy because they are cheaper, tell them they have been paying $787 a year on top of their bills for those fossil fuels without knowing it.

Derek Wong is a Toronto based sustainability consultant. See contact info and more posts like this atCarbon49.com. Special thanks to the International Monetary Fund for providing additional data for these calculations.