Skip to main content

G20 Fossil Fuels Subsidies

G20 Fossil Fuels Subsidies


Written by: Andra Vitola Koranteng

G20 countries supposedly are encouraged to pay attention to their internal policies and measures in a systemic way as well experts are supposed to help with learning from the previous lessons so that countries can achieve efficient awareness about the environmental, social, and economic impact of their fiscal policy. [1] 

However, gradually eliminating fossil fuel subsidies have been one of the hardest things to do. Since 2009, G20 countries have continuously agreed over and over to pledge to reduce fossil fuel at every summit. Yet, in reality, progress has been very little, or it has backslid. A recent report shows that G20 countries provided $147 billion in subsidies to coal, oil, and gas in 2016. [2] 

Fossil fuel subsidies benefit wealthier households that use more fuel and energy, but it's unproductive to support low-income households. Instead of spending money to support coal, oil, and gas, this money can be used to invest in sustainable energy infrastructure, research, and job training. 

OECD did an analysis of budgetary transfers, tax breaks, and spending programmes associated with the production and use of coal, oil, gas, and other petroleum products in 44 OECD and G20 countries. Overall, fossil fuel support rose by 10% to USD 178 billion in 2019. [3]

Currently, none of the G20 NDC (nationally determined contributions) targets for 2030 is in line with the Paris Agreement. Based on the current policies Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Turkey, and the United States are most likely to miss their NDC (nationally determined contributions) targets. As for China, the European Union, Indonesia, Japan, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, although they are more likely to achieve or even overachieve their current target, it's mostly due to the fact that their NDCs have a low level of ambition. 

When it comes to the G20 energy supply, on average, 82% is from fossil fuels. Energy from the fossil fuels between 2012 and 2017 notably increased in Canada, India, and Indonesia. Zero-carbon technologies, including hydro, nuclear, and new renewables, contribute 14% of this 5% account for renewable energy such as solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass, excluding traditional biomass in residential. And 3% of the average G20 energy supply is from solid fuel biomass for residential use. 

On the bright side, several G20 countries have made announcements that have a significant impact on climate policy. Argentina invested US$ 5.7 billion to push renewable energies, and India released the draft 'Cooling Action Plan' with the aim of decrees demand cooling by 20% to 25% by 2037. 

Unfortunately, some actions aim in the wrong direction. The UK canceled climate polices (Zero Carbon Homes, Feed-in-Tariffs, energy efficiency measures in buildings) and Brazil's new subsidy to diesel consumption provided in 2018. Saudi Arabia (total amount of subsidies US$30 billion), Italy (US$14 billion), Australia (US$7 billion), and Brazil (US$16 billion) are the countries from G20 that provide the highest amount of fossil fuel subsidies per unit of GDP. 

On average, for fossil fuel power projects (coal, oil, and gas projects and associated infrastructure), G20 countries from 2013 to 2015 provided US$91.4 billion a year. And South Korea, Japan, and Russia provided the most substantial amounts compared to their GDP. [4] 

Due to Covid19 between the beginning of the year and July 3, 2020, G20 countries have committed at least US$135 billion to fossil fuels and only US$ 68 billion to clean energy, and US$26 billion committed to "other energy." Money generally channeled through direct budgetary transfers, tax expenditure, loans, loan guarantees, transfers induced by government regulations, and various hybrid mechanisms. [5] 

Reviewed by: Abraham Sumalinog

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more