Yes, it does have a table summary, you are correct there.
However, I've already shown that 65% of what you call 'subsidies and kickbacks' in the US is actually things like our strategic oil reserves and fuel assistance for low income people.
You have not demonstrated that at all.
By the way, you still didn't answer - do you think we should do away with fuel assistance for low income people?
You didn't answer my last 10 or so posts correctly, so why should I answer you? But, having had a background in welfare services, I think there are many ways we can help the poor get raound. That's not what these studies are criticising! They're mainly criticising tax breaks and kickbacks and special government service provision (rail lines, research grants etc) all to a dirty industry that SHOULD be dying instead!
I actually have no problem with government assistance to worthwhile industries. I remember being quite shocked to learn from the Scientific American podcast that the American Federal government put something like a TRILLION into your internet: but then I remembered what a great public asset that is and how many amazing industries and services the internet provides, so I guess I have no problem with government money going into public 'goods'. But public 'bads' like fossil fuels that we are supposed to be weaning off? Sorry. They kill something like 50,000 Americans a year (from memory, don't quote me on that). They cost your health budget so much you may as well tax 1005 of the electricity cost again to pay the health bill up front. They ruin the environment where they are mined, turning wilderness into wasteland. And bit by bit they are running out.
This is the story of American conventional oil (think Beverly Hillbillies) pumping light sweet crude. Conventional oil peaks in the 70's, then the unconventional more expensive stuff kicks in towards the later years.
Unconventional dirtier oil replacements, like fracking and shale oil and tar sands, do the same job but at a far greater environmental and financial cost: a financial cost the Saud's are trying to undercut right now. What if that wasn't an issue? What if all your power came from affordable nuclear power using Integral Fast Reactors and Liquid Fluoride Thorium reactors that burn nuclear waste and warheads?
So, since I've already PROVEN that you call very needed and helpful things to low income Americans 'subsidies and kickbacks' for big oil,
PROVEN hey?
Where did you do that again? What % of these kickbacks are actually subsidies for the poor? Where's the
evidence? 
I thought I'd shown that fossil fuels KILL the poor who tend to work around brownfield working class sites more exposed to particulates.
I don't want a table summary, I want a SPECIFIC list of what you are calling 'subsidies and kickbacks' so that I can see if you're trying to scam me again.
Diddly widdums wants to call names rather than actually deal with evidence in front of him?
Look mate, everything you want in terms of methodology etc is in the IEA paper. I can't help you if you don't want to read it. There are pages and pages of information about how the market signal for fossil fuels are discounted in the economy by half a TRILLION dollars of government assistance worldwide. There are discussions about the different types of tax breaks, research grants, government bought physical infrastructure projects, etc. It's a LONG and complicated PDF. Feel free to read it rather than continue embarrassing yourself here.
My point is that half a TRILLION dollars in VERY REAL subsidies to fossil fuels
that are going to run out one day anyway could solve climate change instead of making it worse, and save 8 million lives and shave 10% off most national health bills while we're at it!
EG: "Lifters" (LFTR's) have been estimated coming off the production line at about $2 bn / GW. So $500 bn is 250 GW / year of clean nuclear energy.
By 2020, coal will provide
2,384,000 MW or 2,384 GW. (Much of this could be prevented if we build nukes out fast in the first place!) So if we put
fossil fuel subsidies into LFTR's
instead, we'd replace coal capacity in 2,384 / 250 = 9.5 years, or about a decade, once we got the LFTR factories really up and running. (Because their reactor core vessels don't use water as a coolant and they run at normal atmospheric pressures, they can be mass produced like Boeing jets. Imagine a 100MW reactor coming off the line every day for about $200Million dollars = 1GW / $2bn which is CHEAPER than coal!).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayIyiVua8cY
The bottom line? What I'm saying is that COAL and OIL and GAS particulates kill 3 million a year and cost us 10% more: why subsidise them when the
subsidies alone could solve climate change for us over time?
