Fossil Fuel Subsidies and Clean Energy

Fossil Fuel Subsidies

Written by: Andra Vitola Koranteng

Fossil fuel subsidies are universal around the world, based on the approximate calculation by the international organizations roughly global value of global fossil fuel subsidies are between US$325 billion and US$5300 billion per year.

Aside from the harmful impacts that these subsidies do to the environment, fossil fuel subsidies are as well economically inefficient. Economically this money can be used on other priorities like health and education.

As for the environment, fossil fuels are the primary source of greenhouse gas emissions and prevent the shift towards clean energy. These fossil subsidies are weakening the competitiveness of renewable energy.

Issues regarding fossil fuel subsidies have been an essential point on the G20 agenda since the 2009 Summit in Pittsburg during this summit G20 leaders pledge dedication to “rationalize and phase out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption.”

However, even after all these years, the gap between commitment and actions remains a huge issue. A study by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) and Oil Change International (OCI) roughly estimated that between 2013 and 2014, G20 countries, on average, spend US$78 million per year on fossil fuel subsidies (through direct spending and tax breaks).[1]

Although G20 countries have been continuously committing to act upon the issues of the fossil fuel subsidies yet studies show that government support for the production of coal-fired power actually has actually increased, from US$17.2 billion in a year (2013-2014) to US$47.3 billion per year (2016-2017).

In general, on average G20 governments support coal through US$27.6 billion in domestic and international public finance, US$15.4 billion in fiscal support, and US$20.9 billion in state-owned enterprise (SOE) investments per year.[2]

Recent reports show that G20 countries still, on average, contribute at least US$ 77 billion per year in fossil fuels (oil, gas, and coal projects), which are more than three times than what is provided to support clean energy.[3]

Reviewed by: Abraham Sumalinog

Comments

30th Green Climate Fund Meeting Notes

30th Green Climate Fund Meeting Notes 30 th Green Climate Fund Board Meeting 4-7 September 2021 (Virtual meeting) The GCF's Board Members were expected to approve 13 Funding Proposals equivalent to USD1.2 billion and accredit 4 Accredited Entities (actually for re-accreditation), and also address various policy gaps and governance issues. 1 st Day (4 October 2021) The first day was slow which was spent on discussing procedural matters The co-chair from Mexico (Jose) opened the meeting by welcoming the new Board members and their alternates Discussion on the Technical Sessions held a week before B30 on the Simplified Approval Process (SAP), and Climate Rationale was done without considering the evaluations made by the IEU. The co-chair responded by saying that the independent evaluation of SAP and Climate Rationale are already part of the proposed agenda. Due to some objections from a couple of Board members, the co-chairs agreed to add another agenda item rel

Climate and COP Negotiations Lobbying Crisis

Climate and COP Lobbying Crisis The climate crisis is a pressing concern that must be addressed rapidly and effectively with concrete action. How? Climate crisis issues can be resolved by reducing emissions and increasing renewable energy sources, transitioning to a Circular Economy, investing in green infrastructure, and adopting holistic strategies that address the underlying causes of climate change. These measures are essential if we are to avoid catastrophic environmental consequences. Furthermore, they create an opportunity for innovation and economic growth by developing and implementing new low-carbon technologies and sustainable business models. It is also essential to build resilience and adaptive capacity in our communities. This means investing in infrastructure that helps people cope with the impacts of climate change, such as sea-level rise, extreme weather events, and flooding, among other methods. It also involves developing innovative approaches to reduce emissions a

COP26: Article 6 Outcomes

COP26: Article 6 Outcomes Image Source: eu.boell.org This article is a brief version of the article published by twn.org on the results of negotiations among Parties on issues related to the contentious Article 6 of the Paris Agreement (2015) Article 6 Outcomes on Market/Non-market Approaches Article 6 is PA’s ‘cooperative approaches’ among Parties involving the use of market and non-market mechanisms of their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC)’s implementation Establishment of the ‘Glasgow Committee on Non-market Approaches’ – a win for DCs - This formal institutional mechanism can advance the non-market approaches (NMAs), which was initially resisted by developed countries - Considered a victory under the Paris Agreement’s Article 6.8 No Decision for a Mandatory Contribution – a loss for DCs - The market-based approach under PA’s Article 6.2 is a loss to the developing countries as there was no decision reached for a mandatory contribution t

Climate Governance Integrity

Search This Blog