G20 Backtracks on Fossil Fuel Funding Phase-Out in COVID-19 Recovery
G20 governments still spending more than half a trillion USD on oil, gas, and coal each year, new study reveals
November 10, 2020—Despite repeated pledges to end inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, G20 governments’ support to fossil fuels has dropped by only 9% since 2014–2016, hitting USD 584 billion annually over the last three years, according to a report released today by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), and Oil Change International (OCI). This marginal progress will likely be undone this year by billions of dollars committed to fossil fuels in response to COVID-19, researchers say.
“G20 governments were already not on track to meet their Paris Agreement commitments on ending public support for fossil fuels before COVID-19,” says Anna Geddes of IISD, lead author of the report Doubling Back and Doubling Down: G20 Scorecard on Fossil Fuel Funding. “Now, disappointingly, they are moving in the opposite direction. G20 funds for fossil fuels are likely on course to remain constant or even trend upwards again in 2020 compared to the last few years where we’ve seen a slight drop in support.”
According to the latest data from the Energy Policy Tracker, G20 governments have given at least USD 233 billion in additional support through recovery measures to fossil fuel-intensive sectors since the pandemic began. In Doubling Back and Doubling Down, researchers considered recent COVID-19 recovery commitments as well as pre-pandemic policies to rank G20 countries' progress in phasing out support to fossil fuels.
They looked at seven indicators: transparency, pledges, public money for coal, oil and gas, fossil fuel-based power (both production and consumption), as well as how support has changed over time. In most countries assessed, the progress made during the last three years was described by experts as “poor” or “very poor,” and no country was considered to have made “good progress” in line with reaching Paris Agreement goals.
Among the G20 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) members, Germany performed best overall in terms of phasing out fossil fuel funding, while Mexico, Turkey, and the United Kingdom ranked equally lowest. Out of the non-OECD G20 countries, Brazil scored highest while Saudi Arabia came in last.
Top scorer Germany got points for transparency, strong commitments, and relatively lower support for oil and gas production and fossil fuel use. The country’s overall support to fossil fuels dropped 35% relative to 2014–2016. Brazil’s relatively good performance was tied to low support for coal production, fossil fuel-based power and consumption, and a reduction in state-owned enterprise investment in fossils. However, “new measures under consideration could soon reverse this progress," Geddes says.
On the other end of the spectrum, the United Kingdom and Turkey rank poorly due to a lack of transparency and large subsidies for fossil fuel use, while Mexico was docked for heavy support for oil and gas production and fossil fuel-based power. Saudi Arabia also continues to heavily support oil and gas production and fossil fuel-based power, mostly through large state-owned enterprise expenditures and low consumer energy prices, researchers report.
“No G20 country is performing as it should, but there are some examples that could be followed,” says Angela Picciariello of ODI. “A true leader would mirror Germany’s transparency and strong pledges and go a step further than Italy with a plan to rapidly phase out not only support for coal but also oil and gas. To be in line with 1.5°C and avoid the worst of the climate crisis, G20 governments should rule out any continued fossil fuel support, in recovery spending or otherwise."
Although this report and other recent data on public COVID-19 commitments indicate that the already slow progress on phasing out fossil fuel funding has now been thrown into reverse, researchers say there are upcoming opportunities for governments to turn the tide.
“Governments are in the midst of rolling out historic levels of public finance in response to the pandemic. Instead of bankrolling another major crisis—climate change—our governments should invest in a resilient future,” says Bronwen Tucker of OCI. “We are in a critical window for governments to shift the support currently going to fossil fuels towards public health, social supports, and a just transition to renewable energy.”
“China, Japan, and South Korea’s recently announced net-zero emissions plans and the EU's Green Deal initiative indicate that there is momentum to increase ambition and demonstrate a commitment to climate action,” says Geddes. “The current Finance in Common summit, the G20 summit on November 28 and the Paris Agreement’s fifth anniversary in December are chances to build on these. Although the last three years have shown a lack of progress from governments, we can make the next three years a turning point.”
For media inquiries, please reach out to:
The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) is an award-winning independent think tank working to accelerate solutions for a stable climate, sustainable resource management, and fair economies. Our work inspires better decisions and sparks meaningful action to help people and the planet thrive. We shine a light on what can be achieved when governments, businesses, non-profits, and communities come together. IISD’s staff of more than 120 people, plus over 150 associates and consultants, come from across the globe and from many disciplines. With offices in Winnipeg, Geneva, Ottawa, and Toronto, our work affects lives in nearly 100 countries.
You might also be interested in
G20 Members Must Commit Now to Reducing Fossil Fuel Spending
As governments put their COVID-19 recovery strategies into action, they must ensure that public funds go to support the energy transition, rather than perpetuate past reliance on fossil fuels.
Trevor Hancock: B.C. government's LNG infatuation makes it dangerously radical
The Sierra Club B.C. announced in February that it is taking the provincial government to court “for failing to present plans to achieve several key climate targets, as required by its own climate change legislation.”
Energy experts fear India's turn to 'dirty coal' commercially unviable
Amidst the coal crisis where the Centre has invoked an emergency law to operate idle coal import-based utilities, energy transition experts believe the electricity generation for 1.35 billion people based on expensive imported coal for blending is commercially unviable -- both high and inflationary.
Governments' Climate Laws Could Spur $340B In ISDS Claims
As governments consider how and when to enact legislation or mitigation measures meant to address climate change, a study shows there is a pricey cause for concern as fossil fuel companies could bring legal claims worth billions of dollars against them in order to protect their assets.