Search Climate Insights Directory

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) criticizes the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) for attempting to use the pandemic to suspend environmental regulations. CAPE asserts that 'Do No Harm' in a planetary health context requires strengthening climate policies, investing in a net-zero transition by 2050, and addressing the ecological determinants of health to prevent future zoonotic and climate-related crises.

The authors argue that COVID-19 economic bailouts present a rare opportunity to integrate climate goals into stimulus policies. They suggest linking financial assistance for sectors like aviation and oil and gas to carbon emission limits and clean energy transitions, citing the 2008 US auto bailouts as a precedent for successful conditional support. The text advocates for specific measures such as a carbon tax on jet fuel, the creation of a US national electricity market, and the adoption of the EU's green deal targets to ensure long-term economic competitiveness and energy security.

Argentina ranks second among G20 non-OECD countries due to relatively low support for fossil fuel use and good transparency, though it provides significant annual funding for oil and gas production, primarily through state-owned enterprise investments.

Brazil ranks first among non-OECD G20 countries in the scorecard due to low support for coal and fossil fuel-based power, though it continues to provide significant funding for oil and gas production. While state-owned enterprise investments in fossil fuels decreased by 23% compared to the 2014–2016 average, the country faces criticism for a lack of transparency and the implementation of new tax incentives to boost oil and gas production.

Canada provides significant public finance for fossil fuels, ranking worst among G20 OECD members on a per GDP basis. While some exploration measures have been phased out, total support increased by 12% relative to 2014–2016, driven largely by infrastructure development for oil and gas, including liquefied natural gas. The document highlights substantial unquantified support for projects like the Trans Mountain Pipeline and recent COVID-19 relief measures for fossil fuel producers.

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.

Saudi Arabia is ranked lowest among G20 non-OECD member countries due to high levels of fossil fuel support, totaling an annual average of $77 billion between 2017 and 2019. This support is primarily driven by state-owned enterprise (SOE) investments, with Saudi Aramco providing approximately $33 billion annually for oil and gas and the Saudi Electric Company investing $8.2 billion annually in fossil fuel-based power. While the government introduced energy subsidy reforms in 2016 and 2018 under Vision 2030, domestic fuel prices remain significantly below international benchmarks. Transparency remains low regarding direct budgetary transfers and tax expenditures, leading to likely underestimations of total support.

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.

Italy provides an annual average of USD 13.7 billion in total government support to fossil fuels (2017–2019), dominated by USD 11.2 billion for fossil fuel consumption via tax credits and exemptions on diesel and petroleum. While Italy has phased out support for coal production, it increased public finance for fossil fuels by 33% between 2014 and 2018, primarily for oil and gas production. The document also notes a USD 3.3 billion COVID-19 bailout for Alitalia and describes Italy's transparency regarding environmentally harmful subsidies as mediocre.

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.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) estimates that two EPA rollback proposals from 2018 and 2019 would increase 2025 emissions by 4.3 million metric tons of methane, 1 million metric tons of VOCs, and 38,000 metric tons of HAPs. The 2018 proposal focuses on reducing the frequency of leak detection and repair (LDAR) surveys, while the 2019 proposal seeks to remove regulations for the natural gas transmission and storage segment and eliminate methane standards for the entire sector, which would remove the EPA's obligation to regulate existing facilities. CATF's estimates are significantly higher than the EPA's because CATF accounts for emissions from existing sources and abnormal process conditions, both of which the EPA excludes. The near-term climate impact of the additional methane is compared to the carbon dioxide emissions of approximately 100 coal-fired power plants.

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 argues that the fossil fuel industry, specifically citing Exxon, knew about the warming effects of CO2 as early as the 1950s but spent millions on disinformation to obscure this reality. It asserts that the industry adopted the 'tobacco industry’s playbook' to attack scientific consensus, use fake experts, and promote logical fallacies to confuse the public. The document outlines the 'FLICC' framework (Fake experts, Logical fallacies, Impossible expectations, Cherry picking, and Conspiracy theories) to explain the techniques used in climate denial and proposes 'inoculation' as a method to neutralize these tactics by communicating facts, revealing sources, and explaining denialist techniques.

The report identifies a pattern of financial ties—including funding, sponsorship, and investments—between the UK's professional science and engineering bodies and the fossil fuel and arms sectors. It highlights that organisations such as the Royal Academy of Engineering, EngineeringUK, and the Energy Institute received significant funding and promoted these industries despite their ethical shortcomings regarding carbon emissions and human rights.

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 Union of Concerned Scientists asserts that the United States has the lowest electoral integrity among advanced industrial democracies, which undermines the ability to create science-based policies. The report links voter suppression and gerrymandering to poor public health and environmental outcomes, citing examples in Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Texas. It advocates for reforms such as automatic voter registration, nonpartisan redistricting, and public campaign financing to reduce the influence of 'dark money' and corporate interests on government decision-making.