Search Climate Insights Directory

The report finds that donors must double their current annual contributions to food security, adding 14 billion USD per year, while low- and middle-income countries must provide an additional 19 billion USD annually through taxes. These combined investments of 33 billion USD per year would prevent 490 million people from hunger and double the incomes of 545 million smallholders. The analysis emphasizes that Africa has the highest need for these funds and recommends a balanced investment strategy across three categories: enabling inclusion, on-farm productivity, and post-harvest food systems.

Australia has increased its total government support for fossil fuels by 30% compared to the 2014–2016 average, primarily through tax exemptions and credits. Total support averaged USD 7.7 billion between 2017 and 2019, with the vast majority (USD 7.5 billion) directed toward fossil fuel use. The document highlights significant tax breaks for producers via the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) and fuel tax credits, noting that nine of the ten largest producers paid no corporate income tax in 2017–18.

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.

Russia is identified as the second-largest provider of government support to fossil fuels globally, with an annual average of USD 80.9 billion between 2017 and 2019. This support is primarily driven by state-owned enterprise (SOE) investments and tax expenditures for oil and gas production. While the country has phased out some property tax exemptions for pipelines, overall tax expenditures for fossil fuels rose 79% compared to 2014–2016 averages. The report notes significant unquantified support via preferential rail tariffs for coal and regional programs for Arctic oil and gas, as well as a lack of commitment to G20 peer reviews on subsidies.

The report analyzes the shift of global environmental governance to virtual formats during the 2020 pandemic, noting that while operational decisions (like budgets) were achieved via the 'silence procedure', substantive negotiations on climate and biodiversity were largely delayed. It highlights that pandemic-related emission drops were temporary and structural, and warns that the crisis exacerbated social inequalities and hindered scientific reporting, such as the IPCC's sixth assessment report. The document concludes by advocating for a 'green and inclusive recovery' and a stronger link between biodiversity protection and pandemic prevention.

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 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.

Rwanda has significantly improved its electricity access and investment landscape through robust policy frameworks, including the expansion of off-grid solutions and the restructuring of utilities. While the country has seen rapid progress in electrification rates and the attraction of private investment, it still faces challenges in energy efficiency, gender mainstreaming, and the inclusion of informal settlers in its energy plans.

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 report analyzes technical and policy pathways for Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, and Peru to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050-2070. It argues that current Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) are insufficiently ambitious and recommends a shift toward widespread electrification, zero-carbon electricity, and sustainable land-use management. The study highlights that while technical solutions exist, achieving these goals requires profound structural changes in energy and transport systems, as well as the development of Long-Term Strategies (LTS) to avoid stranded assets and ensure a just transition.

The report describes South Africa's plastics economy as a linear "take-make-waste" model characterized by high dependency on virgin fossil-fuel-based materials and a weak waste management system. It highlights that plastic packaging is a major leakage hotspot, with over 50% of converted plastics having a lifespan of less than three years. While a recycling sector exists, it is heavily reliant on an under-supported informal waste sector and is vulnerable to fluctuations in global oil prices. The document argues that recycling alone is insufficient and advocates for a circular economy approach involving the elimination of problematic plastics, mandatory extended producer responsibility (EPR), and the adoption of the South African Plastics Pact to achieve specific 2025 targets for recyclability and recycled content.

The author argues that while the EU views renewable energy as a path to energy security and industrial strength, it currently lacks a clear objective or blueprint for its future integrated energy system. This absence of a systemic plan creates domestic risks, such as redundant spending and political friction between Western and Eastern member states, and external vulnerabilities in the face of competition from China and the US. The text suggests that the EU must integrate its energy, infrastructure, and industrial policies to secure critical materials and market share, potentially utilizing the European Green Deal and the Just Transition Fund to mitigate internal disparities.

The report analyzes the potential for Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, India, Japan, and the United States to strengthen their mitigation targets to align with the Paris Agreement's temperature goals. It evaluates these potentials by examining socioeconomic data, historical emissions, current policy projections, global least-cost pathways using marginal abatement cost curves, and 'fair share' equity principles. The analysis also considers the political feasibility of deploying available low-carbon technologies and phasing out fossil fuel subsidies.

The document outlines two methodologies—fairness-based and cost-effectiveness-based—for determining national GHG emission reductions required to meet the Paris Agreement's goals of limiting warming to well below 2°C and ideally 1.5°C. It notes that current commitments, including those of Germany and the EU, are insufficient. The analysis focuses on major emitters including Brazil, Canada, China, the EU, India, Japan, the USA, and specifically Germany, to identify gaps between current Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and the levels of ambition suggested by mitigation potentials or fair shares.

The document argues that climate change is already causing avoidable injuries, illnesses, and deaths while damaging healthcare infrastructure. It highlights a significant global adaptation gap, noting that funding for health adaptation is less than 1% of international climate adaptation finance. The authors propose a framework for building climate-resilient health systems focusing on workforce knowledge, information systems, service delivery, and adequate financing. Key recommendations include increasing research investments, developing scenario-based integrated adaptation plans, and promoting zero-emission technologies to reduce the overall adaptation burden.