Let me quote from the articles then, and then link you the resource you ignored from the BBC article...
"According to the ODI, 75% of energy project support from international banks went to fossil fuel projects in 12 of the highest emitting developing nations." - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24833153
"However, oil has been documented as having several additional health and environmental effects that cost us a large amount more. Additionally, there are tremendous military costs to protecting oil supplies (in the trillions and trillions) and keeping shipping lanes open." - http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/07/...gas-subsidies/
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell...enewables-iea/
I apologise for linking back to articles I feel you have glossed over and not read thoroughly. They clearly have data from the OECD report but that data is supported by other reports, are all of them wrong?
It isn't as simple as subsidies only, but the benefits given to an industry already doing extremely well for itself is something I have a hard time supporting.
Going back to governments supporting new industries, I agree with peterb in that without government support many industries would not be around at the moment, nuclear being one of them. Going forward I find it hard to see nuclear being useful for us in the future without government assistance, thankfully Chinese and Indian governments are investing in it while the UK and USA aren't. We will at least get the technology developed by other countries and catch up to them later.