Search Climate Insights Directory

The report examines domestic policy reforms in developing countries focused on price reform, energy efficiency, and low-carbon fuels to mitigate climate change. It analyzes the political and economic barriers to price reform, the necessity of legal frameworks and specialized agencies for energy efficiency, and the role of financial incentives and standards. The document also evaluates the use of input, output, outcome, and impact indicators for monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), concluding that only impact indicators provide a reliable basis for financial rewards, despite significant data gaps in developing countries.

The Global Subsidies Initiative (GSI) presents a methodology for measuring irrigation subsidies by calculating the difference between the cost of making irrigation water available and the revenue received from beneficiaries. The framework focuses on 'full supply cost,' incorporating annual capital costs (interest and depreciation) and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, while excluding complex elements like opportunity costs and full social costs due to data constraints. It provides detailed guidance on allocating joint capital costs in multi-purpose projects using the Alternative Justifiable Expenditures (AJE) and Separate Costs, Remaining Benefits (SCRB) methods. The methodology also addresses specific subsidies such as discounted electricity for groundwater pumping and identifiable government expenditures on environmental externalities. Revenue components include water sales, hydropower, fishing rights, and pollution taxes.

The report examines the proliferation of subsidies in India across agriculture, energy, and industrial sectors, highlighting a significant gap between official budgetary estimates and actual costs. It argues that while subsidies are intended for welfare and food security, they often result in regressive distribution, environmental degradation, and financial instability for state entities. The document specifically analyzes the impact of irrigation, power, and fertilizer subsidies on the environment and equity, and reviews India's export incentive schemes and their compatibility with WTO rules, including specific disputes in the iron and steel sector.

The document examines the conflict between domestic subsidy regimes and WTO trade liberalization goals, arguing that current measures like PSE, CSE, and AMS only track subsidy levels rather than their actual trade-distorting effects. It proposes 'terms-of-trade' as a superior metric for detecting unfair trade practices. The report provides case studies from India, Brazil, and the Southern African Customs Union (SACU), highlighting how subsidies in OECD countries—specifically in the EU and US—harm developing economies' agricultural sectors, such as sugar and beef, while noting that developing nations often use subsidies for social stability and food security.

The research develops a two-step econometric model to determine the demand for energy services (space heating, water heating, and appliances/lighting) for 440 Canadian households. By using deterministic frontier analysis to estimate the efficiency of furnaces and water heaters, the authors find that low-income households are significantly more responsive to price and income changes than higher-income households. The study confirms a 'rebound effect' where increased efficiency leads to higher energy service demand. These findings are used to argue for targeted subsidies, such as funding for efficient furnaces, to help low-income groups cope with energy price increases driven by climate change policies. The authors also discuss the potential application of this methodology to the Indian energy sector.

The document challenges the assumption that climate protection is a financial burden, asserting that energy-efficiency investments often yield returns exceeding 100% per year. It identifies eight categories of market failures—including capital misallocation, organizational failures, and perverse regulatory incentives—that cost the American economy approximately $300 billion annually. By shifting focus from theoretical economic models to empirical business evidence, the authors demonstrate that 'whole-system engineering' and 'barrier-busting' policies can reduce carbon emissions while increasing GDP and competitiveness. The report highlights that high energy prices are not the only driver of efficiency, citing Seattle's success in saving electricity faster than Chicago despite lower prices. It concludes that a market-transformation approach can stabilize the climate and foster economic growth globally, particularly in developing nations.

The paper argues that natural resource subsidies—direct, indirect, and implicit—lead to overcapitalization, technological inefficiency, and overconsumption, resulting in severe environmental damage. Using forests and fisheries as case studies, it demonstrates how low rent capture and fleet modernization subsidies drive deforestation and stock depletion. The author suggests that international bodies, particularly APEC's Economic Committee, should adopt 'full-cost pricing' and the 'User-Pays Principle' to internalize environmental externalities and ensure sustainable resource management.

The report details how fossil fuel production and use cause systemic health damage across all human life stages and geographic regions, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities. It maps these impacts from site preparation and extraction to combustion and waste disposal, highlighting the role of pollutants like PM2.5, benzene, and heavy metals. The document also examines the societal harms of the industry, including forced displacements, human rights violations, and political corruption. It concludes by advocating for a 'just transition' that prioritizes public health, eliminates fossil fuel subsidies, and holds polluters accountable through the 'polluter-pays' principle.

The document highlights the hidden costs of coal power in Indonesia, noting that coal producers received at least IDR 12.4 trillion (USD 946 million) in subsidies in 2014, which was five times the total subsidies for renewables from 2010 to 2015. It asserts that renewable energy is more cost-competitive when air pollution and CO2 externalities are included in the cost structure. Additionally, it emphasizes that significant investment in renewables is required to provide sustainable electricity access to millions of Indonesian households currently without connections.

The document asserts that renewable energy is significantly cheaper than coal when air pollution externalities are included. It highlights that coal producers in Indonesia received at least IDR 12.4 trillion (USD 946 million) in subsidies in 2014, which is more than five times the total subsidies provided to renewable energy between 2010 and 2015. The text warns that continuing coal reliance could lock in emissions and pollution for 25 years and notes that large renewable investments are required to provide electricity access to millions of households in Indonesia.

The document examines Indonesia's energy subsidy regime, covering gasoline, diesel, kerosene, LPG, electricity, and coal. It argues that these subsidies are regressive, primarily benefiting wealthier households while straining the national budget and discouraging investment in clean energy. The guide details the economic and environmental risks of maintaining these subsidies and outlines strategies for reform, such as targeted cash transfers and gradual phase-outs, drawing on Indonesian and international experiences.

The author describes the U.S. nuclear power industry as the "greatest collapse of any enterprise in industrial history," attributing this failure to a combination of institutional hubris, skewed economic data, and a federal policy focus on hardware over energy efficiency. The text details how the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and the Department of Energy (DOE) promoted myths regarding the cost-competitiveness of nuclear power compared to coal and ignored the potential of energy productivity improvements. It further examines the failure of the breeder reactor and reprocessing programs, arguing that the federal government continues to subsidize an uncompetitive technology while ignoring cheaper, more efficient alternatives.

Amory Lovins defends his position that nuclear power lacks a viable business case, noting that new U.S. reactors cannot attract private capital despite significant subsidies. He contrasts this with the growth of renewables, which attracted $131 billion in global private investment in the previous year.

The Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) proposes a comprehensive federal strategy to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and oil use by approximately 50% by 2020. The framework prioritizes reducing energy demand through efficiency in buildings, transport, and industry before substituting supply with renewables and biofuels. Key recommendations include implementing 'feebates' for vehicles, establishing a 'Smart Grid', and creating a national 'energy corps' for workforce training. RMI argues that climate protection is profitable and that the U.S. should move toward a system where all energy production and saving methods compete fairly without distorting subsidies.

The report examines Indonesia's transition from universal energy subsidies to targeted Energy Safety Nets (ESNs) for electricity and LPG. While electrification rates reached 98.81% by early 2019, significant gaps persist in eastern regions like Papua and Maluku due to infrastructure deficits. The study highlights the role of the Unified Database System (BDT) in targeting beneficiaries and the success of the kerosene-to-LPG conversion program, which reached 54 million households by 2012. However, it finds that energy reforms have been primarily driven by fiscal pressure rather than universal access goals, leading to a 'left-out sub-population' in remote areas and a widening consumption gap between the rich and poor.

The report analyzes four Energy Safety Nets in Mexico: differentiated electricity tariffs, Oportunidades Energéticas, the Fondo de Servicio Universal Eléctrico (FSUE), and a pilot program for subsidized LPG. It finds that while electricity tariffs provide broad support, they are inefficiently targeted. Other targeted programs, such as Oportunidades Energéticas and the LPG pilot, were short-lived and lacked significant impact on shifting households to cleaner fuels. The FSUE has provided thousands of connections but faces data gaps and is currently on hold. The study recommends targeting electricity subsidies using social assistance registers and expanding the FSUE to include clean cooking technologies.

The document defines Energy Safety Nets (ESNs) as government-led approaches to close the affordability gap for essential energy services, including electricity and clean cooking fuels. It distinguishes between ESNs for physical connections (one-off transfers) and those for ongoing consumption (recurring transfers). The guide outlines various targeting methods—geographic, social, economic, and demographic—and delivery mechanisms such as cash transfers, vouchers, and reduced tariffs. It emphasizes the need for gender-responsive design, robust evaluation, and high-level policy coordination to achieve universal energy access as outlined in Sustainable Development Goal 7.

The report evaluates India's transition to clean cooking energy through four primary mechanisms: Direct Benefit Transfer for LPG (DBTL), the Give it Up Campaign, Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY), and the Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributorship. While PMUY successfully provided 80 million subsidized connections to poor households by September 2019, the study finds that access has not translated into sustained use due to affordability barriers, specifically the recovery of connection loans and the high recurring cost of refills. DBTL reduced leakages by blocking 42.3 million fake or inactive connections by March 2019, but inclusion errors persist as 90 percent of the non-poor population continue to receive subsidies. The report recommends a differential subsidy for the poorest households, waiving PMUY loans, and integrating LPG programs with other social safety nets like maternal health and livelihood schemes to ensure a complete transition from biomass.

The report examines 25 initiatives across Brazil, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Kenya, and Mexico to determine how social assistance can bridge the gap between market prices and what the poor can afford for energy. It distinguishes between support for physical connections and ongoing consumption, finding that while many programs successfully increase connection rates, they often fail to ensure sustainable consumption due to poor targeting, lack of data on actual energy needs, and the volatility of fuel prices. The study highlights the potential of integrating energy support into unified social registries to improve targeting and delivery.

The report assesses Ghana's energy safety nets, finding that while programs like the National Electrification Scheme and Solar PV initiatives have significantly increased physical access, most lack precise targeting of the poor. The Lifeline Tariff is the only program that explicitly targeted the poor, though it faced challenges with meter sharing and inefficient appliances. The study recommends transitioning to means-testing and improving public education to ensure energy services reach the most vulnerable.