Search Climate Insights Directory

Fossil fuel subsidies, which exceeded USD 1.2 trillion in public financial support in 2024, distort energy markets and lock countries into fossil fuel dependence. These subsidies take the form of consumer price supports, producer incentives, and general services. While subsidies declined to USD 921 billion in 2024 from a 2022 peak of USD 1.76 trillion, geopolitical tensions in 2026 are risking a new increase in support measures to shield consumers from price shocks.

The briefing examines the impact of energy supply disruptions stemming from the US-Iran war, noting that the current crisis is larger than the 1970s oil embargo. It argues that while governments are using short-term fixes like strategic reserves and subsidies, the long-term solution lies in electrification, demand-side efficiency, and the scaling of 'green molecules' like hydrogen and ammonia. The text highlights specific vulnerabilities in Southeast Asia and the US, and suggests that mitigating methane leakage and flaring could recover energy volumes equivalent to approximately half of worldwide LNG trade.

The report analyzes the 'twin fossil shocks' of the 2020s—the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and the 2026 shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz—comparing them to the 1970s oil crises. It contends that unlike the 1970s, today's energy transition is driven by 'electrotech' (solar, wind, batteries, and EVs) that is cheaper, faster to deploy, and more secure than fossil fuels. The authors suggest these shocks will accelerate the absolute peak of fossil fuel demand, particularly by pushing LNG out of power generation and oil out of road transport, especially in Asia. The document concludes with policy recommendations to prioritize electrification and remove fossil fuel subsidies to end fuel dependency.

The authors argue that voluntary initiatives to reduce fossil fuel subsidies have failed, as evidenced by 2023 subsidies reaching $794 billion. They propose a binding WTO agreement based on the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability (ACCTS) model, which uses the Standardized Carbon Rate Measurement (SCRM) to ensure carbon prices remain above committed levels. The paper suggests that successful subsidy removal depends on a state's ability to transition to green energy and recommends a WTO waiver on local content requirements to support this transition.

The document argues that the DNSH principle should be a binding eligibility requirement for EU funding rather than a general guideline, ensuring that no activity funded by the EU budget causes significant harm to any of the six environmental objectives. It calls for a strict interpretation of derogations, the creation of an explicit exclusion list—specifically including fossil fuels—and the implementation of transparent, independent assessment procedures to prevent the 'watering down' of environmental standards.

This fact sheet presents data to justify a transition away from fossil fuels in Latin America and the Caribbean, emphasizing the risk of stranded assets and the region's high vulnerability to climate impacts. It highlights a contradiction where the region possesses the world's cleanest electricity grid yet continues to increase fossil fuel production and consumption. The document calls for the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies—which totaled USD 52.8 billion in 2024—and the implementation of a 'Just Transition Mechanism' following COP30 to support labor reconversion and community sovereignty.

The document argues that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has transformed the phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies from a political commitment into a mandatory legal obligation. It recommends that states inventory harmful financial supports, phase them out gradually to minimize socio-economic disruption, and redirect funds toward green solutions and population support. While the ICJ explicitly mentioned fossil fuel subsidies, the briefing suggests this reasoning extends to other harmful supports, such as agricultural subsidies.

The document argues that the ICJ Advisory Opinion transforms the removal of fossil fuel and other climate-harmful subsidies from a political commitment into a legal imperative. It recommends that states track financial support, phase out subsidies gradually, reallocate funds to green solutions, and coordinate internationally to reduce legal and political risks.

The briefing examines the legal implications of the 2025 ICJ Advisory Opinion on climate change, arguing that the provision of fossil fuel subsidies may constitute an internationally wrongful act. It extends this reasoning to other harmful subsidies, such as those in agriculture and plastics, and provides recommendations for states to reduce legal risk through transparent, phased reforms and international coordination via the Coalition on Phasing Out Fossil Fuel Incentives Including Subsidies (COFFIS).

The document argues that the ICJ's 2025 advisory opinion transforms the removal of fossil fuel subsidies from a political commitment into a legal imperative, as such subsidies may constitute an 'internationally wrongful act'. It suggests this reasoning extends to other harmful subsidies, such as those in agriculture and plastics, increasing the legal risk for states. The briefing recommends that governments implement transparent, gradual phase-out plans, prioritize social protection over production subsidies, and coordinate internationally through initiatives like the Coalition on Phasing Out Fossil Fuel Incentives including Subsidies (COFFIS).

The report examines a diverse array of transition mechanisms, including Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs), national sectoral processes in countries like Germany and Chile, and first-mover alliances such as the Powering Past Coal Alliance. It highlights the necessity of national ownership, structured social dialogue, and blended finance to overcome political gridlock and ensure a just transition. The analysis reveals significant gaps in international support, particularly a shortfall in grants and concessional finance for Global South countries and a lack of coordinated global guidance for designing transition roadmaps.

Indonesia's energy subsidies peaked at IDR 886.1 trillion in 2022 and remained high in 2024 at IDR 713.5 trillion, with fossil fuel support accounting for 88.9% of the total. The report highlights three dominant costs: electricity compensation for the state utility PLN, 3-kg LPG subsidies, and fuel compensation payments to Pertamina. These measures often benefit higher-income households and create a 'net negative carbon price' that offsets the national carbon pricing scheme. While electric vehicle (EV) incentives have surged since 2020, they remain negligible compared to fossil fuel support. The document recommends a phased reform plan to redirect spending toward renewable energy, targeted social protection, and induction cooking to reduce import dependency and emissions.

The report analyzes India's energy subsidy landscape in FY 2025 and FY 2026, highlighting a significant imbalance where fossil fuel subsidies are three times higher than clean energy subsidies. It details the fiscal strain on state governments due to rising electricity subsidies and the vulnerability of the national budget to global LPG and crude oil price volatility caused by conflict in the Gulf. The analysis argues for a strategic shift from recurring fossil fuel subsidies to one-time capital investments in renewable energy, electric cooking, and electric mobility to enhance energy security and fiscal sustainability.

The document translates the ICJ's 2025 Advisory Opinion on climate change into practical legal tools for climate litigation. It details State obligations under international treaties (UNFCCC, Paris Agreement) and customary law, emphasizing a 'rigorous' due diligence standard to limit global warming to 1.5°C. The guide covers specific litigation areas including government framework cases, adaptation, reparations, the right to a healthy environment, corporate conduct, climate finance, speculative interventions (like geoengineering), and regulatory backsliding, providing key quotes and illustrative case examples for each.

The document translates the ICJ's 2025 advisory opinion into practical tools for climate litigation, focusing on government framework cases, adaptation, remedies, the right to a healthy environment, corporate conduct, climate finance, speculative interventions, and regulatory rollbacks. It emphasizes that States have binding obligations to limit warming to 1.5°C, act with 'stringent' due diligence based on the best available science (IPCC), and protect human rights. The notes detail how these findings can be used to challenge inadequate NDCs, hold corporations accountable for emissions, and oppose the dismantling of environmental protections.

The document analyzes the ICJ's advisory opinion to argue that States must prioritize reducing greenhouse gas emissions at the source over speculative technologies like geoengineering and carbon offsets. It outlines how the ICJ's standards of 'stringent due diligence' and the 'precautionary principle' can be used in litigation to hold States and corporations accountable for ineffective climate strategies that delay the phase-out of fossil fuels.

The document analyzes the implications of the ICJ's advisory opinion on States' obligations to prevent environmental harm, specifically focusing on the cessation of fossil fuel subsidies and the regulation of private finance. It argues that States may commit internationally wrongful acts by continuing to fund fossil fuel production or failing to regulate private financiers. Additionally, it outlines binding obligations for developed States to provide financial assistance to developing countries for climate adaptation and mitigation under the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement. The briefing concludes by categorizing various types of climate litigation—including cases against public agencies, central banks, and private financial institutions—where these legal findings are applicable.

The document translates the ICJ's advisory opinion into practical tools for climate litigation, focusing on the 'stringent due diligence' States must exercise to regulate private actors, particularly in the fossil fuel industry. It highlights that States may be in breach of international obligations if they fail to prevent significant climate harm through the production, licensing, or subsidizing of fossil fuels. The brief also connects these findings to specific case categories, including licensing, duty to regulate, corporate frameworks, accountability for loss and damage, and greenwashing, emphasizing the 1.5°C temperature goal as a legal standard.

The document distills key findings from the ICJ's July 2025 advisory opinion, establishing the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment as a binding norm of international law and a precondition for other human rights. It outlines State obligations to protect the climate system, the material scope of wrongful acts—including omissions related to fossil fuel subsidies and licenses—and the legal consequences of breaches, such as full reparation. The briefing also categorizes types of climate litigation, such as cases treating the right to a healthy environment as an autonomous right or linking it to the rights of nature, to illustrate how the ICJ's reasoning can be applied in domestic and international courts.

The document translates the ICJ's 2025 advisory opinion into practical tools for climate litigation, focusing on government framework cases, adaptation, remedies, the right to a healthy environment, corporate conduct, climate finance, speculative interventions, and regulatory rollbacks.