Search Climate Insights Directory

The G20 Scorecard evaluates OECD and non-OECD members across seven criteria related to fossil fuel funding, including transparency, pledges, and the scale of support for coal, oil, gas, and power generation. It ranks countries such as Germany, France, and Brazil at the top of their respective groups, while others like the United States and Saudi Arabia receive lower scores in multiple categories.

The United Kingdom ranks last among G20 OECD member countries in the G20 Scorecard of Fossil Fuel Funding, with an overall score of 48/100. While overall support decreased by 21% compared to 20142016, the U.K. saw a 96% increase in public finance for fossil fuels and an 86% increase in support for coal production. The U.K. provides USD 9.2 billion annually in support for fossil fuel consumers through foregone tax revenue and has faced criticism for a lack of transparency regarding its export credit agency, UKEF, and its denial of providing fossil fuel subsidies under its own definitions.

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 document outlines the economic and social opportunities for African nations to 'recover better' from the COVID-19 pandemic by prioritizing sustainable energy. It estimates that achieving universal electricity access in Africa by 2030 requires an annual investment of USD 29 billion, while clean cooking solutions require USD 2 billion annually. The guide highlights the GDP and job creation multipliers of clean energy over fossil fuels and provides a framework of eight 'enablers'—including the removal of fossil fuel subsidies and the implementation of cost-reflective tariffs—to facilitate this transition. It uses India as a case study for successful policy implementation in the global south.

The guide identifies significant energy access gaps in South Asia, with 152 million people lacking electricity and 990 million lacking clean cooking as of 2018. It proposes that governments allocate 25% of stimulus budgets to renewables and target 30% localization of clean energy value chains. Key benefits cited include a GDP multiplier where every USD 1 invested in renewables yields USD 0.93 in additional growth, and the creation of 2 to 2.5 times more jobs than fossil fuel investments. The document recommends eight enablers for this transition, including the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies, a moratorium on new coal-fired power, and the adoption of cost-reflective tariffs.

The guide outlines opportunities for Southeast Asian nations to 'recover better' from the COVID-19 pandemic by shifting economic stimulus toward sustainable energy. It identifies significant untapped potential in energy efficiency, particularly in buildings and cooling, and advocates for increasing the share of renewable energy in the power mix. The document highlights macroeconomic benefits, including GDP growth and job creation, while proposing eight enablers for a successful transition, such as eliminating fossil fuel subsidies and declaring a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants.

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 finds that while India's clean cooking schemes improve energy access and save women an average of one hour per day, current LPG subsidies are inefficiently targeted, with nearly half of beneficiaries not belonging to the poorest households. It recommends refining subsidy targeting to better support poor households and adopting a holistic strategy that promotes non-fossil-fuel cooking technologies, such as electricity.

The document argues that because fossil fuel combustion drives both climate change and air pollution, well-designed carbon pricing—such as taxes, emission trading systems, and the removal of subsidies—can reduce both greenhouse gases and local pollutants. It emphasizes that the short-term health benefits of improved air quality often outweigh the costs of climate policy, which can help build broader political support. The author advocates for a holistic policy approach across all sectors and governance levels, involving multidisciplinary research to avoid unintended consequences, such as chemical reactions caused by partial pollutant reduction.

Feike Sijbesma, CEO of Royal DSM, advocates for the adoption of meaningful carbon pricing to drive private sector innovation and investment in clean technology. He notes that while some jurisdictions already use carbon pricing, current levels are often too low to be effective, suggesting that prices between $50-$100 per ton are needed by 2030 to meet Paris Agreement commitments. Sijbesma highlights that Royal DSM uses an internal carbon price of €50 per ton to future-proof growth and encourages governments to combine carbon pricing with net-zero 2050 targets and the removal of fossil fuel subsidies.

The commentary asserts that bold climate action is not a trade-off with economic growth but an engine for it, potentially delivering $26 trillion in net global economic benefits by 2030. It advocates for 'people-centered climate action' that uses inclusive processes to unlock benefits for marginalized groups, such as recycling carbon pricing revenues to support low-income households. The text provides sector-specific opportunities in energy, urban planning, and food systems, while emphasizing that adaptation investments of $1.8 trillion could yield $7.1 trillion in benefits. It highlights real-world examples from Indonesia, Canada, and Spain to demonstrate how low-carbon transitions can reduce poverty and create millions of green jobs.

The open letter calls on nine Multilateral Development Banks to accelerate their commitment to the Paris Agreement by ending all assistance for oil, gas, and coal projects after 2020. It demands a rapid scale-up of investments in renewables and energy efficiency, specifically targeting universal energy access by 2030 and allocating at least 50% of finance to climate by 2025. The letter emphasizes the need for transparent reporting on portfolio emissions and the development of just transition plans for workers and communities.

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 Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment calls for urgent federal action to treat climate change as a public health emergency, advocating for a target-based plan to limit warming to 1.5°C to protect Canadian health and reduce healthcare costs.

The document argues that current oil and gas expansion plans are incompatible with Paris Agreement goals, as emissions from existing fields alone would likely exceed the 1.5°C limit. It highlights a projected USD 1.4 trillion investment in new extraction between 2020 and 2024, primarily in North America, and calls for a managed phase-out of fossil fuels supported by government bans on new licenses and a shift toward renewable energy.

The briefing examines the shared origins of air pollution and climate change, primarily fossil fuel combustion, and advocates for integrated policy frameworks. It details the significant health and economic burdens of air pollution, particularly in urban areas and for vulnerable groups. The text demonstrates that the health co-benefits of climate mitigation, such as carbon pricing, often outweigh the policy costs. It provides examples of coordinated efforts in Chile, California, the EU, Madrid, and London, while warning that uncoordinated policies—such as incentivizing diesel vehicles for lower CO2 or installing SO2 filters that reduce plant efficiency—can create counterproductive outcomes.

The report examines the high cost and regressive nature of India's energy consumption subsidies, which totaled INR 87,830 crore (USD 13.1 billion) in 2017. It highlights a critical knowledge gap, as the last comprehensive distributional analysis is based on 2011 census data. The document proposes several targeting mechanisms, including opt-out schemes, volumetric quotas, categorical targeting based on social or geographic criteria, and the use of proxy means testing via income and asset data. It specifically analyzes the Ujjwala scheme's success in connection targeting and the challenges of sustained LPG usage among the poor due to ongoing consumption costs.

The report assesses how India's LPG subsidy schemes, specifically PAHAL (DBTL) and Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY), affect poor women. It finds that while PMUY has increased LPG access and reduced drudgery—saving women an average of one hour per day—significant inefficiencies remain. Many poor households are still left behind due to affordability and distribution barriers, while a large share of consumption subsidies benefit wealthier households. The report recommends improving targeting, reviewing the PMUY loan system to ensure affordability for the poorest, and adopting a more holistic clean cooking strategy.

The We Mean Business Coalition asserts that a transition to a zero-carbon economy is achievable but requires stronger government intervention to accelerate. The document highlights corporate commitments across power, transport, the built environment, heavy industry, and land use, while calling for policies such as carbon pricing, the removal of fossil fuel subsidies by 2025, and the implementation of robust Article 6 rules under the Paris Agreement to drive systemic change.

The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) outlines a comprehensive strategy for the U.S. to achieve net-zero emissions by mid-century. Key recommendations include restoring CAFE standards, investing in sustainable aviation fuels and electric aircraft, establishing national energy efficiency and renewable portfolio standards, and targeting net-zero energy for new buildings by 2050. The report emphasizes environmental justice, calling for a national climate bank and increased funding for the Rural Energy Savings Program. It also advocates for carbon pricing with border tax adjustments, the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies, and a transition to a circular economy to reduce plastic pollution.