Fossil Fuel Subsidies & Climate Change

This working paper models 26 countries and finds national average emission reductions of 6 per cent from the removal of fossil fuel subsidies. For every tonne of CO2e removed through FFSR, governments save an average of USD 93. Global emission reductions from reforms are between 6.4 and 8.2 per cent by 2050. Countries can consider the carbon reduction co-benefits from FFSR and taxation within second-generation Nationally Determined Contributions.

In their closing statement at the UNFCCC COP 23 in 2017, the world’s 47 least developed countries requested that the Talanoa Dialogue include “managing a phaseout of fossil fuels”. The 2018 Talanoa Dialogue is a crucial opportunity to increase climate mitigation ambition and effectiveness by putting fossil fuel phase-out on the international climate agenda.

Two events this September set a new bar for climate change leadership. First, over 340 non-governmental organisations from 67 countries signed the Lofoten Declaration. This document calls for an end to exploration and expansion of new oil, gas and coal reserves, a managed decline of the oil, coal, and gas industry, and a just transition to a safer climate future.

Can the international trade system be a catalyst for reforming fossil fuel subsidies (FFSs) to help relieve the burden on the public purse, reduce local and global air pollution, improve energy security and tackle climate change?

There is a pressing “need for faster reform, urgency and political commitment.”[1] These were the opening highlights of the fifth high-level event on fossil fuel subsidy reform, organized by the Friends of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform (“Friends”), Global Subsidies Initiative and the World Bank on April 21, in the context of the 2017 International Monetary Fund and World Bank Spring Meetings held in Washington, D.C.

Phase-out and reallocation of fossil fuel subsidies (FFS) is a low-hanging fruit for financing and implementing SDGs. First, it has a diverse support base of both sustainable development advocates and “government downsizers.” Second, instead of requiring financing like many sustainable development policies, it could free up hundreds of billions of dollars for implementing multiple SDGs.