Search Climate Insights Directory

The report argues that fossil-fuel subsidies lock economies into carbon reliance, exacerbate greenhouse gas emissions, and divert funds from social services. It concludes that while reform is politically difficult due to interest group influence and administrative path dependence, it would lead to aggregate GDP increases and significant CO2 reductions. The document emphasizes that transparency—both through improved national accounting and a new international reporting regime—is essential for successful de-subsidization. It provides a framework for reform based on research, clear objectives, coherent policy design, and the prevention of backsliding through independent pricing bodies.

The report examines the critical role of transparency in reforming fossil-fuel subsidies, particularly in the context of 2009 commitments by the G-20 and APEC. It identifies a significant gap in available data, noting that current estimates often rely on a 'price-gap' approach that overlooks producer subsidies. The author proposes a two-track approach to improve transparency: enhancing domestic accounting and reporting standards within countries, and establishing a new international data-gathering regime. This international regime would ideally involve a standard reporting template, standardized methodologies, and the potential leadership of intergovernmental organizations like the IMF or World Bank to ensure global buy-in and consistency.

The paper examines the systemic failure of India's kerosene subsidy, noting that approximately 60 per cent of subsidized fuel reaches intended beneficiaries while the rest is diverted to the black market. It details failed reform attempts, including the use of GPS tracking, chemical markers, and smart cards, arguing that these partial solutions fail because the underlying price differentials create powerful incentives for corruption. The author concludes that only the liberalization of fuel prices and the removal of artificial price differentials can permanently address fuel diversion and the resulting financial losses to state-owned oil companies.

The author contends that the perceived intractability of nuclear proliferation, climate change, and oil dependence stems from a mistaken assumption that climate protection and oil displacement are costly. By applying 'integrative design' and 'micropower' (cogeneration and renewables), the author argues that energy efficiency and distributed generation are more profitable, faster to deploy, and more effective than nuclear power. Specifically, the paper asserts that phasing out nuclear power is a necessary condition for nonproliferation because civilian nuclear infrastructure provides the materials and knowledge required for weapons. The author proposes that the U.S. should reform the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by redefining the obligations under Article IV to provide developing nations with efficient, non-nuclear energy security rather than nuclear technology.

This fact sheet by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) traces the evolution of the sustainable development movement. It highlights a progression from early environmental warnings, such as Rachel Carson's 1962 book, through the establishment of major international frameworks like the 1992 Rio Earth Summit and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, to contemporary challenges including the 2008 global financial and food crises and the 2009 Copenhagen climate negotiations.

The document identifies the need to translate political calls for the phasing out of fossil-fuel subsidies, such as those from the G-20, into coherent action through a multilateral program. It references research from the GSI and support from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) regarding the role of transparency in accelerating these reforms.

The Green Economy Coalition argues that fossil-fuel subsidies drive climate change and obstruct sustainable development by distorting the cost of low-carbon energy. While welcoming the G-20's September agreement in Pittsburgh to phase out these subsidies over the medium term, the Coalition calls for greater urgency and specific measures to protect the welfare of the poorest during the reform process.

The report examines the compatibility of various climate policies—including labelling, fuel efficiency standards, border carbon adjustments, and green subsidies—with WTO law. It concludes that WTO rules do not prevent countries from taking immediate action to combat climate change, provided the measures are properly designed and non-discriminatory. The authors argue against using the WTO as an excuse for policy inaction and suggest that 'Kyoto-compliance' should take priority over 'WTO-compliance' in global governance.

The document examines the 'price-gap' method of measuring energy subsidies, which calculates the difference between domestic and world reference prices. While the author acknowledges its simplicity and utility for international benchmarking, the paper argues that the method creates 'blind spots' by ignoring subsidies that do not alter market prices, such as credit subsidies, R&D funding, and risk transfers. This leads to a significant understatement of the total fiscal and environmental costs of fossil fuel supports. The author recommends a hybrid approach, combining annual price-gap tracking with comprehensive 'transfer-based' evaluations every five years for major energy nations.

The report argues that REDD, as currently designed, focuses on reducing rather than stopping deforestation and risks becoming a tool for corporate profit rather than climate mitigation. It highlights significant risks to indigenous land rights, the potential for 'leakage' where deforestation simply moves to other areas, and the danger of replacing natural forests with monoculture plantations. The author criticizes the use of carbon markets to fund REDD, suggesting instead public funding derived from fossil fuel taxes and the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies.

The report critiques REDD, asserting that it is designed to reduce rather than stop deforestation and may incentivize the replacement of natural forests with carbon-poor plantations. It warns that financing REDD through carbon markets could allow industrialized nations to avoid reducing fossil fuel emissions, undermine national sovereignty in developing countries, and lead to the displacement of indigenous communities. The author argues that REDD's 'opportunity cost' calculations often benefit polluters and that the mechanism is susceptible to market volatility and corporate lobbying. The document advocates for a non-market, grant-based funding system managed by the UN, focused on ecosystem justice, the recognition of indigenous land rights, and the elimination of the underlying drivers of deforestation.

Friends of the Earth argues that major oil companies are receiving billions in taxpayer-funded subsidies and tax cuts despite reporting record profits, which the organization claims hinders the transition to renewable energy and conservation.

The document critiques 'oil aid'—public financing for fossil fuel infrastructure in the Global South—arguing it exacerbates the 'resource curse', benefits wealthy nations and corporations over the poor, and undermines climate action. It calls for a shift in public subsidies toward renewable energy to achieve a socially just energy transition.

The text consists of remarks by David Runnalls at the Trade Ministers’ Dialogue on Climate Change Issues in Bali (2007). He asserts that climate change threatens global GDP and human well-being, potentially leading to the failure of the multilateral trading system if left unaddressed. Runnalls highlights that the UNFCCC and WTO frameworks are mutually supportive and suggests four primary areas of linkage: direct impacts of climate change on trade infrastructure, competitiveness impacts of national climate actions, legal interactions between the two regimes, and the use of trade policy to benefit the climate. Specifically, he proposes liberalizing trade in low-carbon goods, reducing fossil fuel subsidies, creating special rules for environmental subsidies, and improving technology transfer and intellectual property rights (IPRs) to facilitate a clean development path for developing countries.

The document identifies several trade policy levers to address climate change, including the liberalization of trade in low-emission goods, the reinstatement of subsidies for greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction, the removal of domestic barriers to clean energy investment, the relaxation of intellectual property rights for green technologies, and the reduction of fossil fuel subsidies. It emphasizes that trade policy must be part of a broader suite of complementary fiscal and regulatory measures and suggests that while the WTO is the primary venue for multilateral action, plurilateral or regional agreements may serve as alternatives.

The report examines the proliferation of subsidies in India across agriculture, energy, and industrial sectors, highlighting a significant gap between official budgetary estimates and actual costs. It argues that while subsidies are intended for welfare and food security, they often result in regressive distribution, environmental degradation, and financial instability for state entities. The document specifically analyzes the impact of irrigation, power, and fertilizer subsidies on the environment and equity, and reviews India's export incentive schemes and their compatibility with WTO rules, including specific disputes in the iron and steel sector.

CIEL argues that the draft Chairman's paper lacks essential references to human rights and community-based property rights, and fails to adequately regulate biotechnology and intellectual property. The organization proposes specific targets for renewable energy portfolios for export credit agencies and multilateral development banks, and calls for binding international guidelines to mitigate the social and environmental impacts of infrastructure projects funded by export credit agencies.

Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) advocates for a minimum 20% reduction in CO2 emissions by industrialised countries by 2010, based on IPCC evidence of human influence on the climate. The document warns of catastrophic consequences, including sea-level rise affecting small island states and the potential disruption of the North Atlantic Current. SGR rejects geo-engineering and cost-benefit analysis as inappropriate tools for climate assessment, instead proposing ecological tax reform, renewable energy investment, and a long-term global goal of equal per capita emissions.

The document frames climate change as the "biggest global health threat of the 21st century," noting that it has caused over 140,000 deaths per year since the 1970s. It asserts that meeting the 2°C global temperature limit requires consuming no more than one-third of proven fossil fuel reserves by 2050. The text advocates for a substantial carbon price, citing British Columbia's carbon tax as a successful model, and suggests that pricing should eventually reach $100-$200 per tonne of CO2 equivalent. It highlights health co-benefits of low-carbon transitions, such as reduced cardiovascular disease from 'cardio-commuting' and fewer respiratory impacts from wind, solar, and hydro power compared to coal. Finally, it urges physicians to use their professional influence to translate climate science for the public and advocate for systemic changes.

The document outlines how climate mitigation strategies in Canada—such as phasing out coal, reducing building energy use, transitioning transportation, and shifting to plant-based diets—can simultaneously reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve health outcomes by reducing air pollution and obesity.