Search Climate Insights Directory

France ranks second among G20 OECD members for its commitments and low support for fossil fuel production per GDP, yet it maintains high support for fossil fuel-based power and consumption. Total government support averaged USD 19.4 billion (2017–2019), with a significant 87% increase in public finance for fossil fuels compared to the 2014–2016 average, primarily driven by oil and gas production.

India provides significant government support for fossil fuels, averaging USD 44.6 billion between 2017 and 2019, primarily through consumer price supports and state-owned enterprise investments in oil and gas. While consumer subsidies for petrol, diesel, and kerosene have decreased, public finance for fossil fuel-based power and SOE investments have increased. The document also highlights unquantified support via power distribution utility bailouts and lower GST rates for coal.

Mexico ranks last among G20 OECD member countries in the G20 Scorecard of Fossil Fuel Funding, with an overall score of 48/100. Between 2017 and 2019, Mexico provided an average of USD 29.9 billion in total government support to fossil fuels, dominated by USD 13.3 billion in annual state-owned enterprise (SOE) investments via PEMEX. While overall support decreased by 21% relative to the 2014–2016 average—driven by a 37% drop in SOE investment—support for fossil fuel-based power increased by 17% due to higher electricity price support. Additionally, the government provided a USD 3 billion tax break on oil extraction to offset COVID-19 related oil price drops.

The report finds that while India has shifted significant public resources toward clean energy since FY 2014, fossil fuel subsidies in FY 2019 remained over seven times larger than those for alternative energy. Key trends include a 65% increase in oil and gas subsidies between FY 2017 and FY 2019, a 35% decrease in renewable energy subsidies due to falling costs and policy constraints, and a rapid increase in electric vehicle support. The authors recommend further swapping fossil fuel resources for clean energy, targeting consumption subsidies for energy access, and addressing the full net costs of coal.

China provides the largest amount of fossil fuel support among G20 countries, averaging USD 134.2 billion annually from 2017 to 2019. While ranked highly for transparency and commitments, China has seen a 35% increase in overall fossil fuel support relative to 2014–2016 averages, driven largely by state-owned enterprise (SOE) investments in oil and gas production.

Indonesia provides significant fossil fuel support, primarily through USD 17.7 billion in price supports for consumers, representing a 56% increase over the 2014–2016 average. While reforms occurred between 2014 and 2017, recent progress is rated as poor, with total government support averaging USD 28 billion from 2017 to 2019. The document highlights a lack of regular reporting and quantification of subsidies, including various tax incentives for upstream oil and gas contractors.

The United States continues to provide significant public finance and subsidies for fossil fuel production and consumption, with a total government support average of USD 7.6 billion between 2017 and 2019. While there was a temporary decrease in international public finance due to a lack of board quorum at the U.S. Export-Import Bank, the bank has since approved USD 4.7 billion for liquefied natural gas in Mozambique. The document highlights a lack of transparency, noting that many production subsidies are unaccounted for in OECD totals, with alternate estimates placing these at USD 20.5 billion per year. Additionally, the U.S. provided USD 72 billion in COVID-19 support for fossil fuels as of August 12, 2020, including USD 58 billion for airline companies via the CARES Act.

As of 2018, approximately 80 percent of Bangladeshi households lacked access to clean cooking alternatives, with 74 percent of the rural population relying on biomass. While LPG adoption is growing at 8–10 percent annually due to government tax exemptions, other technologies like electric stoves (1.1% usage) and improved cookstoves (10% usage) face affordability and awareness barriers. Financing is heavily skewed toward improved cookstoves (ICS) via development finance institutions (DFIs) and government programs like IDCOL, while private sector participation remains limited except in the LPG sector. The proposed National Action Plan 2020–2030 estimates a total investment requirement of USD 2.9 billion to achieve 100 percent clean cooking access by 2030.

The report finds that development finance for energy projects with gender equality objectives remains low, accounting for only 9% of total energy development finance in 2018, significantly lower than the 42% average across all sectors. It highlights systemic challenges in tracking this finance, including inconsistent reporting and a lack of energy-sector-specific guidance for OECD-DAC gender markers. To address these gaps, the document proposes a three-step framework for project documentation: defining the specific gender inequality context, stating a clear intent to address it throughout the project cycle, and demonstrating a direct link between the financed activities and the identified inequality. It also provides a taxonomy of gender inequalities in the energy sector, categorizing them into workforce/economic opportunities and household/workplace energy access.

The report finds that while energy financing disbursements in High-Impact Countries grew by over 61% between 2013 and 2018, they still lag significantly behind commitments, with $32 billion disbursed against $52 billion committed. These delays affect 49% of energy projects in HICs, driven by administrative burdens and poor project design. The document argues that an annual increase of $45 billion in disbursements is needed by 2030 to meet SDG7 goals.

The 2020 report by Sustainable Energy for All highlights a significant and growing gap between the investment needed and the actual funding provided for universal energy access. In 2018, only 16 billion USD was recorded for electrification in high-impact countries (HIC), far below the 41 billion USD annual requirement. Clean cooking funding, while tripling to 131 million USD in 2018, remains drastically lower than the 4.53 billion USD needed annually. The report notes a concerning trend where fossil fuel investments have grown, while renewable energy and off-grid solutions remain underfunded. It calls for coordinated action between development finance institutions and governments, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, to reduce risks for private investors and shift away from carbon-intensive energy sources.

The 2020 report by Sustainable Energy for All reveals a widening gap between the investment needed and the finance actually committed to achieve universal energy access by 2030. In 2018, only USD 16 billion was tracked for residential electrification against a required USD 41 billion, and clean cooking finance reached USD 131 million, far below the estimated USD 4.53 billion annual need. The report highlights a geographic mismatch, where Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for 70% of people in HICs without electricity but received less than 20% of the total electricity access finance. Furthermore, the report notes a concerning trend toward fossil fuel-generated electricity and a lack of private sector investment in clean cooking. It recommends coordinated action from donor governments and DFIs in Sub-Saharan Africa, the termination of fossil fuel project financing, and the adoption of innovative business models for off-grid solutions.

The report finds that energy access finance remains critically below the levels needed for SDG7, with a significant mismatch between where finance is committed and where the need is greatest. While electricity finance increased to USD 43.6 billion in 2018, much of this was driven by fossil fuel projects in a few countries, while Sub-Saharan Africa remains chronically underfunded. Clean cooking finance is even more limited, dominated by a few large projects in Bangladesh. The report advocates for a shift toward renewable energy, the termination of fossil fuel financing, and the adoption of innovative business models and gender-responsive tracking methodologies.

The project aims to shift Montenegro's transport paradigm toward low-carbon mobility through two main outputs: the design of an integrated, high-quality public transport system and the increased deployment of electric cars. It targets the reduction of 77,000 tCO2e in direct emissions over 10 years and 468,000 tCO2e in indirect emissions over 20 years. The strategy involves regulatory reforms, such as a carbon-based vehicle circulation tax, and financial incentives provided by the Green Climate Fund and the national Eco-Fund to make electric vehicles and buses financially attractive. Key targets include the procurement of 70 electric or hybrid buses and 1,300 electric cars for individuals, corporations, and public administration.

The document highlights the continued financial support from Japan for coal power projects and references findings that new renewable energy will be cheaper to build than operating existing coal plants in Southeast Asia within a decade.

The 2019 Global Landscape of Climate Finance report finds that annual climate finance reached an average of USD 579 billion in 2017/2018, a 25% increase over 2015/2016. While renewable energy remains the dominant sector, there is significant growth in low-carbon transport and public adaptation finance. However, the report emphasizes that current investment levels are grossly insufficient to meet 1.5 °C goals, and that finance for fossil fuel supply infrastructure continues to far outweigh clean energy investment.

The report identifies significant funding gaps for universal energy access, noting that 2017 electricity access finance for new households reached only a quarter of the required annual investment. It highlights critically low investment in Sub-Saharan Africa and a severe shortfall in clean cooking finance, which represents less than 1% of the needed amount. Additionally, it argues that continued investment in fossil fuel power plants is incompatible with the Paris Agreement and the SDGs.

The report reveals a pattern of funding, investments, and corporate memberships linking leading UK professional engineering and science organisations to the fossil fuel and arms sectors. It highlights a lack of transparency in financial disclosures and the promotion of these industries to schoolchildren without discussing associated ethical issues. The authors recommend that PESOs implement ethical investment policies, end corporate branding in education, and disclose all corporate payments over £1,000.

The report reveals a pattern of financial links between the fossil fuel and arms industries and UK professional engineering and science organisations, including investments, event sponsorship, and the funding of school education programmes. It highlights a significant lack of transparency and argues that these links compromise the ethical leadership of these professional bodies, particularly when promoting these industries to children without discussing associated ethical concerns.

The assessment finds that green finance for forests is severely insufficient, totaling under USD 22 billion since 2010, and represents only 1.5% of total climate mitigation commitments from developed countries and multilateral institutions. While some domestic initiatives and Green Climate Fund projects show progress, private sector investment remains dominated by traditional 'grey finance' with few mandatory safeguards to prevent deforestation in commodity supply chains.