Search Climate Insights Directory

The document outlines the climate finance requirements for the Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) region, estimating annual mitigation needs between US$40–80 billion and adaptation needs between US$18–21 billion by 2030. It highlights the region's unique emissions profile, where land-use change is the primary driver of greenhouse gases, particularly in South America. The briefing argues that the AGF's recommendations for public-private partnerships and carbon-based revenue sources offer significant opportunities, provided that the region secures an equitable share of adaptation grants and establishes a robust framework for reducing emissions from deforestation (REDD+).

The document examines how the AGF's goal of mobilising US$100 billion annually can support SIDS, noting that while public grants are essential for adaptation, private capital can be leveraged for mitigation. It highlights risks such as the impact of international transport levies on trade and tourism, and the potential for non-LDC SIDS to be underserved by existing aid patterns.

The document critiques carbon trading as an unreliable mechanism that shifts the burden of mitigation to developing countries and benefits the Northern financial industry. It proposes a comprehensive package of alternatives: for mitigation, it suggests global feed-in tariffs for renewables, energy efficiency standards, sustainable small-scale agriculture, and the protection of Indigenous forest rights. For climate finance, it identifies a potential US$420 billion per year in new funding through a global Financial Transaction Tax, cracking down on tax evasion, redirecting fossil-fuel producer subsidies, issuing new Special Drawing Rights, and implementing carbon and energy taxes.

The report critiques carbon trading as a 'risky, irresponsible and dangerous' tool that diverts attention from viable solutions. It proposes a comprehensive package of alternatives: investing US$100 billion annually in renewable energy feed-in tariffs, transitioning to small-scale sustainable agriculture, protecting forests by addressing drivers like agrofuels, and implementing international industrial standards for the 'best available technologies'. For climate finance, it suggests a combination of a global financial transaction tax, combating tax evasion, redirecting fossil fuel subsidies, issuing Special Drawing Rights, and implementing carbon and energy taxes, which could collectively provide at least US$420 billion annually for developing nations.

The report critiques carbon trading as a high-risk distraction that allows developed nations to avoid domestic emissions reductions and undermines the principle of common but differentiated responsibility. It proposes a comprehensive package of alternatives, including a global feed-in tariff for renewable energy, a transition to small-scale sustainable agriculture, and the implementation of common industrial standards for best available technology. To fund these transitions and support developing countries, the report suggests generating at least US$420 billion per year through a global financial transaction tax, cracking down on tax evasion, redirecting fossil-fuel producer subsidies, issuing new Special Drawing Rights, and implementing carbon and energy taxes.

The document critiques carbon trading as a 'dangerous obsession' that allows developed nations to avoid domestic emission reductions and fails to provide predictable financing for developing countries. It proposes a transition to a low-carbon economy through a 'Just Transition' framework, emphasizing the historical responsibility of rich nations. Key mitigation alternatives include a global feed-in tariff program for renewables, sustainable small-scale agriculture, and the adoption of 'Best Available Techniques' in industry. For financing, the report suggests a combination of a global financial transaction tax, combating tax evasion, redirecting fossil fuel subsidies, and issuing new Special Drawing Rights, estimating a potential for US$420 billion in annual new climate finance.

The report estimates that the federal and provincial governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador provide over $2.8 billion in annual subsidies to the upstream oil sector. Using a definition based on the WTO's Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, the study identifies 63 subsidy programs, with development subsidies (reducing capital expenditures) comprising 59% of the total value. Alberta receives the largest share of support (73% of total subsidies), which exceeds its share of crude oil production (67%). Macroeconomic modelling suggests that these subsidies increase national oil production by approximately 5% and GHG emissions by 2% by 2020, while negatively impacting government balances in the federal government, Alberta, and Saskatchewan.

The document reviews the G-20's 2009 commitment to phase out inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies, which were identified as drivers of wasteful consumption and barriers to clean energy investment and climate action. It evaluates progress made up to the June 2010 Toronto Summit and provides a roadmap with six recommended actions for the upcoming Seoul Summit in November 2010.

The report identifies three primary upstream producer subsidies in Indonesia with a combined estimated value of US$ 1.799 billion in 2008. The largest is the Oil Domestic Market Obligation (DMO), which provides a US$ 1.554 billion subsidy to Pertamina's refineries by requiring producers to sell crude oil at discounted prices. Other quantified subsidies include tax incentives for imported goods and services (US$ 130 million) and an investment credit allowance (US$ 115 million). While these incentives are noted to support the government's goal of increasing exploration in new geological plays, the report highlights a steady decline in national oil production and discovery of new reserves since 1996. The study also identifies several potential subsidies requiring further research, such as preferential access to forested areas and expired Production Sharing Contracts (PSCs).

The report examines subsidies in Indonesia's upstream oil and gas sector, identifying 17 potential subsidy activities categorized by WTO standards. It estimates total subsidies at US$ 1.799 billion for 2008, primarily driven by Domestic Market Obligation (DMO) oil subsidies. While some incentives successfully encouraged exploration and investment, the report notes a lack of evidence regarding their efficiency compared to alternative policy methods.

The report analyzes Indonesia's long-term struggle to reform fossil-fuel subsidies, focusing on the period from 1998 to 2010. It examines the rationale for reform—primarily relieving budgetary pressure and improving social welfare efficiency—and evaluates two specific strategies: the Bantuan Langsung Tunai (BLT) unconditional cash transfer program and the Kerosene to LPG Conversion Program. The document concludes that while targeted cash transfers and fuel-switching programs can effectively reduce political opposition and budgetary burdens, they require rigorous preparation and monitoring to avoid social conflict and implementation failures.

The report evaluates the data sources used to track fossil-fuel producer subsidies in four pilot countries—China, Germany, Indonesia, and the United States—assessing the strengths and limitations of commonly referenced databases and international data collection methods.

The document outlines a framework for identifying and quantifying producer subsidies in the fossil-fuel sector, drawing on methodologies from the OECD's agricultural Producer Support Estimate (PSE) and the Global Subsidies Initiative (GSI) manual. It categorizes producer subsidies into direct transfers, government revenue foregone, and government-provided goods or services. The guide highlights significant data gaps, noting that many governments lack full knowledge of their own subsidies and that information is often aggregated or confidential, particularly in countries like China and Indonesia. It suggests that the goal of estimation should be to determine the order of magnitude of subsidies to prioritize reform.

The report investigates the feasibility of using the WTO, UNFCCC, and G-20 as homes for international fossil-fuel subsidy reform. It argues that while the WTO has the legal tools and the UNFCCC has the climate mandate, neither is currently politically viable for a binding agreement. Instead, it proposes a multi-forum approach led by the G-20's political momentum, moving from short-term coordination of research and monitoring toward a long-term negotiated agreement.

The document examines Brazil's trajectory of energy subsidization from the 1930s to 2010, highlighting a cycle of industrial promotion, unsustainable financial deficits in the 1980s, and a partially successful liberalization process in the 1990s. It argues that subsidies distort price signals, discourage efficiency, and create entrenched political interests that make reform fragile and difficult, particularly when energy crises occur in related sectors.

The paper examines fossil-fuel subsidy reforms in France, Ghana, and Senegal, concluding that while no single formula for success exists, effective reform relies on six key strategies: articulating clear objectives, building coherent policies with stakeholder support, persistent implementation, continuous monitoring and adjustment, and preventing policy backsliding.

The document argues that transparency and high-quality data are essential for governments to prioritize and monitor the reform of fossil-fuel subsidies, which otherwise undermine climate and energy security goals. It proposes a two-track strategy involving both domestic improvements in accounting and the creation of an international data-management regime.

The report examines how the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement) creates legal uncertainty for climate mitigation tools. It analyzes specific issues such as carbon allowances, carbon leakage, and renewable energy subsidies, arguing that the current 'benefit' and 'specificity' criteria often fail to account for market failures and historical fossil fuel distortions. The author proposes four alternative legal paths: extending GATT Article XX general exceptions to the SCM Agreement, reviving 'non-actionable' subsidy categories based on Kyoto Protocol goals, broadening environmental goods and services negotiations to include non-tariff measures, or establishing a UNFCCC-driven waiver system.

The restructuring of Poland's coal-mining industry following the 1989 economic transition was initially hindered by over-employment, high production costs, and price controls. Success was only partially achieved through a program endorsed by the Solidarity trade union and supported by significant public funding for mine closures and social benefits, eventually leading toward long-term viability and privatization.

The document argues that fossil-fuel subsidies persist because they are reliable tools for governments to provide benefits to politically organized groups, despite negative impacts on budgets and pollution. It suggests that successful reform requires broader administrative improvements to compensate those negatively affected by the removal of subsidies.