Search Climate Insights Directory

The report finds that while global coal capacity grew by 34.1 GW in 2019, this was primarily driven by China, as capacity in the rest of the world continued to shrink. Global coal plant utilization hit a record low of 51% in 2019. The report highlights a shift in financing, with Western commercial banks largely exiting project finance for coal, while Japanese and Chinese public finance continue to support new developments. Significant retirements occurred in the US and EU, though some OECD nations like Japan and South Korea continue to develop new capacity.

The report finds that while global coal capacity saw a net increase of 34.1 GW in 2019 due to Chinese additions, overall indicators for new projects have declined for four consecutive years. It highlights a significant shift in the OECD, where closures in the US and EU are outpacing new builds, and notes that Japan has become the most active OECD nation in new coal development. The document also details the increasing role of public finance from China, Japan, and South Korea in funding overseas coal projects as commercial banks withdraw support. In China, capacity continues to grow despite low average utilization rates of around 50% and government efforts to limit new permits.

The 2020 Goal 8 Assessment highlights a significant gap between the climate mitigation potential of forests and the financial investment they receive, noting that public finance for forests is dwarfed by investments in renewable energy and domestic 'grey' financing for agriculture.

Argentina ranks second among G20 non-OECD countries due to relatively low support for fossil fuel use and good transparency, though it provides significant annual funding for oil and gas production, primarily through state-owned enterprise investments.

Canada provides significant public finance for fossil fuels, ranking worst among G20 OECD members on a per GDP basis. While some exploration measures have been phased out, total support increased by 12% relative to 2014–2016, driven largely by infrastructure development for oil and gas, including liquefied natural gas. The document highlights substantial unquantified support for projects like the Trans Mountain Pipeline and recent COVID-19 relief measures for fossil fuel producers.

France ranks second among G20 OECD members for its commitments and low support for fossil fuel production per GDP, yet it maintains high support for fossil fuel-based power and consumption. Total government support averaged USD 19.4 billion (2017–2019), with a significant 87% increase in public finance for fossil fuels compared to the 2014–2016 average, primarily driven by oil and gas production.

Germany ranks first among G20 OECD member countries in the G20 Scorecard of Fossil Fuel Funding, with an overall score of 71/100. While the country has reduced overall fossil fuel support by 35% compared to the 2014–2016 average—driven by the end of hard coal mining subsidies in 2018 and plans to phase out lignite by 2038—it continues to provide USD 2.6 billion annually for fossil fuel consumption in industry and transport. This consumption support is primarily delivered through tax relief for diesel and exemptions for aviation and shipping.

India provides significant government support for fossil fuels, averaging USD 44.6 billion between 2017 and 2019, primarily through consumer price supports and state-owned enterprise investments in oil and gas. While consumer subsidies for petrol, diesel, and kerosene have decreased, public finance for fossil fuel-based power and SOE investments have increased. The document also highlights unquantified support via power distribution utility bailouts and lower GST rates for coal.

Japan is ranked second among G20 OECD member countries for its low level of support for fossil fuel use, yet it remains the second-highest supplier of public finance for fossil fuel projects. While overall support dropped by 48%, Japan increased public finance for coal production by 944% relative to the 2014–2016 average. The document highlights significant transparency gaps and the continued funding of coal and LNG projects in countries like Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Indonesia.

South Africa is identified as the second-worst performer among G20 non-OECD member countries due to a lack of transparency and continued support for fossil fuels. Total government support averaged USD 10.9 billion between 2017 and 2019, with the largest portion directed toward fossil fuel-based power. Support increased by 14% relative to the 2014–2016 average, driven largely by price support. The document highlights significant unquantified support, including billions in bailouts and loan guarantees for the state-owned utility Eskom, as well as carbon tax exemptions for major emitters like Sasol.

Turkey ranks last among G20 OECD member countries in fossil fuel funding, providing an average of USD 6.8 billion in total government support between 2017 and 2019. While state-owned enterprise investment in oil and gas production decreased by 33% compared to the 2014–2016 average, support for fossil fuel consumption increased by 11% through tax expenditures. The document highlights significant transparency gaps, noting that Turkey has not performed the G20 fossil fuel subsidy peer review and lacks data on public financing from government-owned banks.

China provides the largest amount of fossil fuel support among G20 countries, averaging USD 134.2 billion annually from 2017 to 2019. While ranked highly for transparency and commitments, China has seen a 35% increase in overall fossil fuel support relative to 2014–2016 averages, driven largely by state-owned enterprise (SOE) investments in oil and gas production.

Italy provides an annual average of USD 13.7 billion in total government support to fossil fuels (2017–2019), dominated by USD 11.2 billion for fossil fuel consumption via tax credits and exemptions on diesel and petroleum. While Italy has phased out support for coal production, it increased public finance for fossil fuels by 33% between 2014 and 2018, primarily for oil and gas production. The document also notes a USD 3.3 billion COVID-19 bailout for Alitalia and describes Italy's transparency regarding environmentally harmful subsidies as mediocre.

The Republic of Korea is the fourth-highest provider of public finance for fossil fuels among G20 countries, with an average annual government support of $12.4 billion between 2017 and 2019. While the government has committed to no new public finance for domestic coal projects and aims for carbon neutrality by 2050 under a Green New Deal platform, it has increased public finance for fossil fuels by 9% relative to 2014–2016 levels and provided $2.49 billion in emergency bailout loans to coal plant manufacturer Doosan Heavy Industries & Construction during the COVID-19 pandemic.

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 report argues that a solution to the Cyprus problem would significantly boost the island's economy by expanding market access, increasing productivity, and attracting investment. Using sectoral and total factor productivity (TFP) methodologies, the authors project that a settlement could increase the total GDP by between €11 billion and €17.4 billion over 20 years compared to the status quo. Key growth drivers include tourism, construction, shipping, and professional services. The report also emphasizes that maximizing this dividend requires strong inclusive institutions, technical transition periods, and a concerted effort to close the gender gap in the workforce, particularly in the Turkish Cypriot community. Additionally, it assesses the financial viability of property restitution, suggesting that a significant portion of compensation costs could be covered by the increased state revenues generated by the peace dividend.

The report identifies a significant 'production gap,' noting that planned fossil fuel production by 2030 exceeds levels consistent with a 2°C pathway by 50% and a 1.5°C pathway by 120%. It argues that these plans are inconsistent with Paris Agreement pledges and are driven by national plans, subsidies, and public finance, while highlighting the need for international cooperation and policy alignment in updated nationally determined contributions (NDCs).

The research examines the systemic nature of corruption and rent-seeking in South African metropolitan municipalities. It contrasts two distinct governance models: Cape Town's 'growth machine,' which leverages land rights and property development for established interests, and Nelson Mandela Bay's 'clientelist' regime, which relies on procurement and personnel rents to sustain patronage networks. The author argues that while growth machines may produce better overall development outcomes, neither model effectively serves the urban poor.

The report tracks G20 nations' efforts to phase out coal subsidies, finding that despite a 2009 commitment, these governments continue to spend at least USD 63.9 billion annually on coal and have failed to fully document the extent of this support.