Fossil fuels receive ~$7T in global subsidies per year, per the IMF, even when less cost efficient than renewables. Markets can remain irrational longer than you can stay solvent. It’s government’s job to step in and correct market failures, when appropriate, including mispricing of potential investments.

https://www.imf.org/en/topics/climate-change/energy-subsidie...

(the world has already deployed 3TW of solar, and is approaching 1TW/year deployment rate, so we’re almost to the tipping point where fossil fuel subsidies will no longer be relevant; until then, finger on the scale when needed)

▲

snapplebobapple 10 hours ago | parent [-]

not that relevant. The investment opportunity set is not limited to fossil fuels. Also that report includes large price skewsfor essentially manufactured uncaptured environmental costs, part of which is political in mature to justify subsidy of renewables, where their buddies make excess returns from said subsidies. Its not quality research

	▲	toomuchtodo 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		My context comes from sitting in on a meeting put together by BloombergNEF during Climate Week 2026 in London where they specifically discuss the global capital market current state as it relates to renewables investments. I'll see if I can find a link for those who did not attend where I pulled the quote and context from that capital is the deployment bottleneck. https://www.bloomberg.org/london-climate-action-week-2026/ Related: There’s a $10T Antidote to Trump’s Climate Backlash - https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2025-climate-tech-investm... \| https://archive.today/m0xg1 - November 4th, 2025 > Annual energy transition investment surpassed $2 trillion for the first time in 2024, more than double the rate in 2020, according to research by BloombergNEF examining the deployment of net zero-aligned technologies and infrastructure.