Search Climate Insights Directory

The report provides a comprehensive inventory of state support for Russia's oil and gas sector, identifying 30 federal subsidy schemes. It quantifies 17 of these at 8.1 billion USD in 2009 and 14.4 billion USD in 2010, noting a significant increase driven by tax breaks for new fields in Eastern Siberia. The analysis highlights a policy bias toward the extensive development of new fields, particularly in the Arctic, over intensive improvements in energy efficiency and recovery rates. It argues that such subsidies increase environmental risks in fragile ecosystems and contradict Russia's international commitments to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.

The report identifies nine subsidies for oil and gas production in Norway, with six costing approximately NOK 25.5 billion (US$ 4 billion) in 2009. These include tax reimbursements for exploration, accelerated investment deductions, R&D grants, and infrastructure provision by Gassco and the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, as well as special treatment for the Snøhvit field. The analysis focuses on the effects of the three largest subsidies on government revenue, employment, and carbon emissions, while recommending improved transparency for subsidy expenditures.

The report finds that majorities of Americans prioritize global warming and clean energy, supporting policies such as renewable energy research, carbon dioxide regulation, and a revenue-neutral tax shift from income to fossil fuels. While there is broad support for environmental protection over economic growth, significant political divisions exist regarding offshore drilling and the Keystone XL pipeline.

The report finds broad American support for developing clean energy and reducing global warming, though support for specific policies like CO2 regulation and renewable energy research has declined since 2008. While there is bipartisan agreement on increasing renewable energy use, significant partisan divides exist regarding the reduction of fossil fuels and the priority level of global warming. Americans perceive large campaign contributors and fossil-fuel companies as having the most influence over elected officials' decisions on climate issues.

The document outlines how different international organizations estimate fossil-fuel subsidies, highlighting the distinction between the 'Inventory Approach' used by the OECD and GSI and the 'Price-Gap Approach' used by the IEA and IMF. It notes that estimates vary based on the types of support included, the countries and fuels covered, and the time periods analyzed. While most focus on direct fiscal incentives, the IMF's 'post-tax' measure uniquely includes implicit support from the failure to charge for environmental damages and externalities.

The document examines Indonesia's energy subsidy regime, focusing on petroleum products, electricity, and coal. It argues that these subsidies primarily benefit high-income groups rather than the poor, create fiscal vulnerability to global oil price volatility, and discourage investment in clean energy. The guide provides evidence from international experiences to suggest a comprehensive reform strategy involving gradual price phase-outs, targeted cash transfers, and improved governance to mitigate social and economic shocks.

The report analyzes three global energy scenarios—Baseline, Basic Energy Access (BEA), and Shared Development Agenda (SDA)—to determine the pathways required to provide sustainable energy for all while limiting global warming to 2°C. It argues that achieving these goals requires a massive socio-technical transformation, including the virtual phase-out of conventional fossil fuels for electricity by 2050 and a significant increase in renewable energy and energy efficiency. Through 20 case studies, the document identifies barriers such as vested interests, high entry costs for the poor, and institutional inertia, while proposing a multi-level governance framework to coordinate innovation, mobilize finance, and align national policies with global sustainable development goals.

The report assesses three global energy scenarios—Baseline, Basic Energy Access, and Shared Development Agenda—to determine how to provide energy for development while limiting global warming to 2°C. It argues that achieving these goals requires a massive socio-technical transformation of energy supply and demand, moving beyond incremental changes to a system dominated by renewables and high energy efficiency. The authors emphasize that this transition requires multi-level governance, including stronger public RD&D, the removal of fossil fuel subsidies, and a shared global development agenda that prioritizes equitable income growth and energy access for the world's poorest regions.

The report recommends that nations adopt strategic principles to accelerate the global energy transition. These include implementing policies for energy efficiency and renewable energy scale-up, creating a transparent global investment fund for poor and emerging economies, developing policy assessment frameworks based on planetary boundaries to manage Earth systems risks, and using sustainable energy measures as a metric for development and environmental progress.

The Rocky Mountain Institute contends that the U.S. government has historically provided far more subsidies to fossil fuels than to renewables, citing $72 billion for fossil fuels versus $29 billion for renewables between 2002 and 2008. The document argues that wind and solar are rapidly becoming cost-competitive, noting a 43% decline in solar PV installed costs from 1998 to 2010. It further highlights the economic burden of fossil fuel externalities, estimated at $63 billion annually, and dismisses the Keystone XL pipeline as a viable energy security solution because it does not support the electricity system.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon argues that sustainable energy is essential to defeating poverty and combating climate change. He proposes three linked objectives for 2030: universal access to modern energy, doubling the rate of energy efficiency improvement, and doubling the share of renewable energy in the global mix. The document identifies financial, regulatory, and infrastructural barriers to this transition and calls for a global 'clean energy revolution' supported by the Sustainable Energy for All initiative.

The briefing proposes that the US congressional super committee avoid austerity cuts to social services and environmental enforcement by targeting "environmentally harmful spending" and generating revenue through a carbon tax and other levies. It highlights the "Green Scissors 2011" report, which identifies up to $380 billion in potential savings over five years from subsidies to the oil, gas, coal, nuclear, and biofuels industries. Additionally, the authors suggest a carbon tax could generate significant revenue, citing a proposal that could have yielded $600 billion over 10 years, alongside potential taxes on sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions and a currency transaction levy.

The document analyzes indirect fossil fuel subsidies in the U.S., which include tax breaks, abnormal accounting, royalty relief, and unpriced societal costs. It argues that many of these subsidies, often established decades ago, persist despite the maturity of the fossil fuel industry and the emergence of cleaner energy alternatives. The report highlights significant financial losses to the federal government, such as billions in foregone royalties and tax expenditures, and notes that the external costs of fossil fuel usage—including health and environmental damages—far exceed the revenue collected to mitigate them.

The document examines a project by the International Budget Partnership (IBP) and the Global Subsidies Initiative (GSI) that questioned 80 governments on their fossil-fuel subsidy spending over three fiscal years. The findings highlight a significant lack of transparency and opacity in how governments report and manage public money spent on oil, gas, and coal subsidies.

The document evaluates the initial year of the G-20's initiative to phase out inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies, noting that while activity has increased and supporting groups like the Friends of Fossil-Fuel Subsidy Reform have been established, the process remains challenging. It emphasizes that the G-20 must still fulfill its medium-term commitments, specifically regarding the monitoring of subsidy phase-outs.

The report details a joint GSI-UNEP conference that brought together delegates and experts from international organizations, NGOs, and the industrial sector to address the lack of transparency regarding national strategies and timelines for fossil-fuel subsidy reform. It highlights the commitments of the G-20 and APEC to phase out inefficient subsidies and the role of the Friends of Fossil-Fuel Subsidy Reform group in supporting these initiatives.

The report presents survey data from 1,000 American adults on their priorities and policy preferences regarding global warming and clean energy. It finds that while a majority of Americans support renewable energy research and tax rebates for energy-efficient vehicles, there is significant political polarization regarding the priority of global warming and the implementation of carbon taxes. The data also indicates a general public belief that environmental protection can improve economic growth.

The document outlines Africa's high vulnerability to climate change and its significant investment gaps in adaptation and mitigation. It evaluates the AGF's proposal to mobilise US$100 billion annually by 2020, highlighting potential public funding sources like carbon taxes and fossil fuel subsidy redirection, while stressing the need for grants for adaptation and regulatory reforms to attract private investment in carbon markets.

The document outlines how the AGF's recommendations for climate finance apply to Asia, noting that while China and India have successfully used carbon markets to attract private finance, other Asian nations will rely more on public revenue. It highlights the potential for 'transformational investments' combining public and private flows, the need for grants and concessional loans for highly vulnerable countries like Bangladesh, and concerns regarding international transport revenue and trade costs. Finally, it suggests that the US$100 billion annual target may be insufficient to meet Asia's adaptation needs.

The document analyzes Asia's climate investment requirements, estimating annual mitigation needs at US$90–180 billion and adaptation costs at US$40–45 billion by 2030. It argues that while private finance can drive mitigation in major economies like China and India, public resources are essential for adaptation and for less developed countries. The briefing highlights opportunities in carbon markets and public-private leveraging, but warns that the Copenhagen Accord's US$100 billion target is insufficient for Asia's needs and that transport or financial transaction levies could negatively impact Asian trade and financial hubs.