Precautionary Principle + New Scientists Warning

This is the IMF fossil fuel subsidies report:
Global fossil fuel subsidies remain large: an update based on country-level estimates.
Prepared by David Coady, Ian Parry, Nghia-Piotr Le, and Baoping Shang
May 2019

The abstract reads:

This paper updates estimates of fossil fuel subsidies, defined as fuel consumption times the
Gap between existing and efficient prices (I.E., prices warranted by supply costs, environmental
Costs, and revenue considerations), for 191 countries. Globally, subsidies remained large at
$4.7 trillion (6.3 percent of global gdp) in 2015 and are projected at $5.2 trillion (6.5 percent
Of gdp) in 2017. The largest subsidizers in 2015 were china ($1.4 trillion), United States
($649 billion), Russia ($551 billion), European union ($289 billion), and India ($209 billion).
About three quarters of global subsidies are due to domestic factors—energy pricing reform
Thus remains largely in countries’ own national interest—while coal and petroleum together
Account for 85 percent of global subsidies. Efficient fossil fuel pricing in 2015 would have
Lowered global carbon emissions by 28 percent and fossil fuel air pollution deaths by
46 percent, and increased government revenue by 3.8 percent of gdp.

The extraordinary thing is, if the last sentence is anywhere near correct, then the number one policy for climate change mitigation, public health improvement and economic activity should be to cut pre- and post-tax fossil fuel subsidies immediately and completely. The only place that is remotely likely to do this might be the EU. I cannot see any of the others, all run by either libertarian or totalitarian governments touching the idea with a barge pole.

This article offers a friendly critique of the above working paper:

By Umair Irfan may 17, 2019
Fossil fuels are underpriced by a whopping $5.2 trillion
We can’t take on climate change without properly pricing coal, oil, and natural gas. But it’s a huge political challenge.