Impakter
  • News
    • Culture
      • Art
      • Cinema
      • Entertainment
      • Literature
      • Music
      • Photography
    • Style
      • Architecture
      • Design
      • Fashion
      • Foodscape
      • Lifestyle
    • Society
      • Business
      • Foreign Affairs & Politics
      • Health
      • Tech
      • Science
      • Start-up
    • Impact
      • Environment
      • Eco Life
      • Circular Economy
      • COP26
      • CityLife
        • Copenhagen
        • San Francisco
        • Seattle
        • Sydney
      • Sustainability Series
        • SDGs Series
        • Shape Your Future
        • 2030: Dream or Reality
      • Philanthropy
        • United Nations
        • NGO & Charities
        • Essays
  • Sustainability Index
  • Partners
  • About
    • Team
    • Contributors
    • Global Leaders
    • Write for Impakter
      • Republishing Content
      • Permissions and Copyright
      • Privacy Policy
    • Contact
No Result
View All Result
  • News
    • Culture
      • Art
      • Cinema
      • Entertainment
      • Literature
      • Music
      • Photography
    • Style
      • Architecture
      • Design
      • Fashion
      • Foodscape
      • Lifestyle
    • Society
      • Business
      • Foreign Affairs & Politics
      • Health
      • Tech
      • Science
      • Start-up
    • Impact
      • Environment
      • Eco Life
      • Circular Economy
      • COP26
      • CityLife
        • Copenhagen
        • San Francisco
        • Seattle
        • Sydney
      • Sustainability Series
        • SDGs Series
        • Shape Your Future
        • 2030: Dream or Reality
      • Philanthropy
        • United Nations
        • NGO & Charities
        • Essays
  • Sustainability Index
  • Partners
  • About
    • Team
    • Contributors
    • Global Leaders
    • Write for Impakter
      • Republishing Content
      • Permissions and Copyright
      • Privacy Policy
    • Contact
No Result
View All Result
Impakter
No Result
View All Result
Home Impact COP26

Hurting People and Hurting the Planet: Fossil Fuel Subsidies

Countries engage in paradox, with climate change commitments on the one hand and fossil fuel subsidies on the other

byRichard Seifman
October 27, 2021
in COP26, Energy
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

In late September 2021 just before the IMF/World Bank annual meetings, IMF Managing Director Georgieva said the following:

“According to our new IMF staff estimates, global fossil fuel subsidies amount to around $6 trillion in 2020—this is 6.8 percent of global GDP. More than 70 percent reflects undercharging for environmental costs.” 

The IMF has arrived at this new figure for global fossil fuel subsidies after developing a new, more comprehensive way of calculating the proper price of pollution, taking into account the health costs of air pollution as well as contributions to the impacts of global warming. 

In the video: The Peterson institute made a video presentation of the new IMF paper “Still Not Getting Energy Prices Right: A Global and Country Update of Fossil Fuel Subsidies” with French economist Jean Pisani-Ferry interviewing one of the paper’s lead authors Ian Parry (Oct. 22, 2021) 

​An important takeaway from this new IMF paper on global fossil fuel subsidies is the policy conclusion: ​If the world would do away with subsidies and adopt “efficient fuel pricing”​ in 2025​ reflecting the real costs​ of fossil fuels use, then global carbon dioxide emissions​ could be reduced by​ 36 percent below baseline levels while raising revenues worth 3.8 percent of global GDP and preventing 0.9 million deaths caused by air pollution.

Screenshot from the Peterson Institute video presentation of IMF paper by Ian Parry.

Why are fossil fuel subsidies important?

In the next few weeks there will be discussions, disagreement, and ultimately an outcome to the 26th session of the United Nations Climate Change Conference, (COP26) taking place in Glasgow, Scotland, which runs from Oct. 31 to Nov. 12.   

Attendance will include many heads of state, including US President Biden and India Prime Minister Modi, although unfortunately not of China’s Xi Jinping or Russia’s Putin who recently announced they were bowing out of a personal appearance. 

The agenda will be filled with environmental data, policy aspects, different country performance and positions, non-governmental views, and the willingness of any or all to take action over the next few years.  There will be constant reference to the goal of getting to Net Zero by 2050.

Given the likely information overload, it is useful to have some help in understanding what it all means – and what is at stake – with respect to a particular widespread behavior, namely the close to $6 trillion in fossil fuel subsidies. While the United States is referred to below and considered in some depth, think about how your country, government, or community stacks up.

Getting a handle on the figures

Making such calculations is a tricky business, with any such methodology subjected to critical views of invested industry, governments, ordinary people, skeptics about the reliability of international institutions, and economists in general. 

That said, and with all appropriate caveats, here is an explanation of sorts:

“A fossil fuel subsidy is any government action that lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received by energy producers, or lowers the price paid by energy consumers. Essentially, it’s anything that rigs the game in favor of fossil fuels compared to other energy sources. The most obvious subsidies are direct funding and tax giveaways, but there are many activities that count as subsidies – loans and guarantees at favorable rates, price controls, governments providing resources like land and water to fossil fuel companies at below-market rates, research and development funding, and more.”  

Essentially it is anything that distorts the playing field in favor of fossil fuels compared to any other alternative. 

Here’s one example of a fairly common “subsidy”, namely infrastructure laws and incentives to encourage investment choices in roads to make auto and trucking more attractive, rather than rail transport.

Going a bit deeper, there are different consumer pre-tax and post-tax subsidy types, and some specifically for producers.  The former occurs when consumers pay prices for gas and the price at the pump is below the costs to supply them; it can also happen when new/additional costs are incurred because of such things as local pollution or traffic accidents which require response/expenses from both the public sector and the concerned individuals.  

For the producers, pre-tax and/or post-tax subsidies provide direct or indirect support, increasing the profit line which would not have happened otherwise. The graph below gives a broad picture:

Measuring Fossil Fuel Subsidies, A Global Picture of Fossil Fuel Subsidies

Source: Fossil Fuel Subsidies imf.org data

At this juncture, it is worthwhile noting that any ongoing or new subsidy support for carbon capital-intensive infrastructure entails lengthening fossil fuel dependence for decades. It also means potentially drawing away public money that might go to health, education, social development, and even other needed infrastructures such as clean water and sewerage. 

Which funding would you rather cut, funding for education or funding for climate chaos? Source: http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

Taking the United States as an example

U.S. money flowing directly from the government to fossil fuel companies to support activities like exploration, extraction, and development, is roughly $20.5 billion annually, including $14.7 billion in federal subsidies and $5.8 billion in state-level incentives, according to an Oil Change International report. Eighty percent of this goes to oil and gas with the rest supporting coal, and most of the subsidies are in the form of tax deductions and exemptions.

Indirectly there is an estimated $14.5 billion in subsidies in public sector payments for home heating oil, as well as infrastructure spending to maintain the fossil-based energy system. The International Monetary Fund estimated that the costs to the U.S. government from climate change, local air pollution impacts, and infrastructure damage not captured by energy taxes totaled $686 billion in 2015 (and that figure is, of course, likely to be much larger today as a fast-growing number of studies demonstrate the negative impacts of air pollution). 

Further, and not typically included, are billions the United States and also other fossil fuel-dependent country militaries spend to protect oil and natural gas supplies, including direct military spending on things like protecting oil shipping routes and maintaining troops near strategic oil-producing locations. 

Keep an eye on COP26 and fossil fuel subsidies

Reducing reliance on fossil fuels will be a priority on the COP26 agenda as a crucial way to get to “Net-Zero” by 2050. As with many things, the devil is in the details. 

So, while we listen from outside the conference rooms and the media reports, it is worthwhile for us to keep an eye on what real commitments are made with respect to fossil fuel subsidies going forward. Hopefully a lot.


Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed here by Impakter.com columnists are their own, not those of Impakter.com. — In the Featured Photo: Working on oil platform offshore  Source: Youtube video Sept 2020

Tags: COP26energy taxglobal fossil fuels subsidiesIMFNet Zeo
Previous Post

Mindful and Meaningful Consumption: Let Sustainable Lifestyle Influencer, Marta Canga, Show You How

Next Post

Can the Paris Agreement Goals Be Met? How The Global Stocktake Works

Richard Seifman

Richard Seifman

Richard Seifman is a former World Bank Senior Health Advisor and U.S. Senior Foreign Service Officer. He is a Senior Columnist at Impakter.

Related Posts

Nuclear power plant Poland
Environment

Poland Approves Its First Nuclear Power Plant

September 26, 2023
climate action energy
Energy

Coal-Fired Contradictions: Why Climate Action Needs a Circuit Breaker

September 18, 2023
Europe fossil fuels
Climate Change

Europe on the Brink of a Clean Power Revolution 

September 5, 2023
Next Post
paris agreement global stocktake

Can the Paris Agreement Goals Be Met? How The Global Stocktake Works

Recent News

US Government Shutdown: A Self-Inflicted Punishment Imposed by Politicians

US Government Shutdown: A Self-Inflicted Punishment Imposed by Politicians

September 27, 2023
sustainable livestock

Unlocking the Potential of Sustainable Livestock Production

September 26, 2023
Water Pollution

Circular Water Economy: A Sustainable Solution for Modern Cities?

September 26, 2023

Impakter informs you through the eco news site and empowers your sustainable lifestyle with its eco products marketplace.

Visit here IMPAKTER ECO for your eco products needs.

Registered Office Address

32 Lots Road, London
SW10 0QJ, United Kingdom


IMPAKTER Limited

Company number: 10806931

Impakter is a publication that is identified by the following International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) is the following 2515-9569 (Printed) and 2515-9577 (online – Website).


Office Hours - Monday to Friday

9.30am - 5.00pm CEST


Email

stories [at] impakter.com

Playwire

Advertise on this site.

About Us

  • Team
  • Contributors
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
  • Partners

By Audience

  • Lifestyle
  • Green Finance
  • Culture
  • Society
  • Style
  • Impact

Impakter Platforms

  • Media
  • Index

© 2023 IMPAKTER. All rights reserved.

No Result
View All Result
  • News
    • Culture
    • Style
    • Society
    • Impact
  • Sustainability Index
  • About
    • Team
    • Partners
    • Contact
    • Privacy Policy

© 2023 IMPAKTER. All rights reserved.