While subsidies normally imply direct cash transfers, there certainly has been quite a lot of evolution around what should count as a subsidy. Most of that rethinking did not come from leftists, as SB would have it, but from free marketeers. For example GATT and NAFTA both have arbitration mechanisms intended to deal with the fact that Govts. frequently subsidize certain industries through preferential tax codes, low interest loans, or subsidized secondary services.
It's still not a subsidy. Government - at least ours in the USA - has some very peculiar ways of treating money. For example, if a program got $1 million in funding 10 years ago, and each year the funding was increased 5%, to propose that funding only be increased by 4% is defined as a "cut in spending!"
So, I go by what the real, rational world defines a subsidy to be, not government officials and bureaucrats.
If the US Govt. spends billions of dollars (and thousands of lives) protecting the global petroleum supply chain each year in places we would have no other interest in, then that provides a benefit to the oil and gas industries. Whether that benefit is direct or indirect, it is still an expense that appears on the Govt. balance sheet rather than the corporate balance sheets. Investing more heavily in solar would certainly reduce these costs, as we don't need to invade anyplace to have access to the sun--we have that already.
Then, because everything in this country depends on oil and gas, that means that everyone
is getting a subsidy, not just oil and gas companies. I also don't agree with that viewpoint as it relates to "subsidy."