In the case of this commodity subsidies are important to the poor. Subsidies like this stabilize the price during times of turmoil (such as $100/barrel) and allow companies to produce energy through projects that would otherwise not be cost beneficial.
There is obviously an inherent moral pitfall to governments and businesses engaging in this kind of practice as a matter of course, but the demand for fuel at every strata of our economy makes the need for these subsidies that much more obvious.
The poor can't handle $10/gallon at the pump, few in the middle class could. Truck Drivers and cabbies would go out of business overnight.
It bears mentioning that this question does not deal with the merits of fossil fuels, but the merits of SUBSIDIZING the product price.
Supporting Argument: Fossil fuel is an important resource, and fossil fuel subsideies is important for the poor because it's a cheaper alternative to living green in our current situation. Fossil fuel subsidies are important to the poor and will be for a while. Until alternative ways become cheaper, fossil fuel will continue to be important for the poor.
No, fossil fuel subsidies are not important to the poor, because a subsidy to a government or to an oil company rarely trickles down all the way to the individual consumer. A poor person needs a job and medical care far more than they need a break on gas prices.