Don't Choose Extinction
The world spends an astounding US$423 billion annually to subsidize fossil fuels for consumers – oil, electricity that is generated by the burning of other fossil fuels, gas, and coal. This is four times the amount being called for to help poor countries tackle the climate crisis, one of the sticking points ahead of the COP26 global climate conference next week, according to new UN Development Programme (UNDP) research.
The amount spent directly on these subsidies could pay for COVID-19 vaccinations for every person in the world, or pay for three times the annual amount needed to eradicate global extreme poverty. When indirect costs, including costs to the environment, are factored into these subsidies, the figure rises to almost US$6 trillion, according to data published recently by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Instead, UNDP’s analysis highlights that these funds, paid for by taxpayers, end up deepening inequality and impeding action on climate change.
The main contributor to the climate emergency is the energy sector which accounts for 73 percent of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. Fossil fuel subsidy reforms would contribute to reducing CO2 emissions and benefit human health and well-being, and they are a first step towards correctly pricing energy – one that reflects the ‘true’ and full cost of using fossil fuels to society and the environment.
But UNDP’s analysis shows that fossil fuel subsidy reforms can also be unfair and harmful for households and society if they are poorly designed. While fossil fuel subsidies tend to be an unequalising tool - as the lion’s share of the benefits concentrate among the rich - these subsidies also represent an important portion of poor peoples’ incomes that otherwise must be paid for energy consumption. Fossil fuel subsidies’ removal thus could easily become an income- and energy-impoverishing strategy. This contributes to making fossil fuels reform difficult, and imposes a key barrier to transitioning to clean and renewable energy sources.
The Don’t Choose Extinction campaign features a collective intelligence platform, the Global Mindpool, to help tackle the most important issues of our time. Linking insights from around the world - on the climate emergency, the crisis in nature and inequality – the Global Mindpool will support UNDP to better inform and equip policy makers in government, civil society, and the private sector.
For more information on the ‘Don’t Choose Extinction’ campaign, visit
https://dontchooseextinction.com/en/
UNDP is the leading United Nations organization fighting to end the injustice of poverty, inequality, and climate change. Working with our broad network of experts and partners in 170 countries, we help nations to build integrated, lasting solutions for people and planet.
"The world spends an astounding US$423 billion annually to subsidize fossil fuels for consumers – oil, electricity that is generated by the burning of other fossil fuels, gas, and coal. This is four times the amount being called for to help poor countries tackle the climate crisis, one of the sticking points ahead of the COP26 global climate conference next week, according to new UN Development Programme (UNDP) research."
ReplyDeleteThe Biden administration speaks in trillions, not hundreds of billions. $100 billion shared between the US and the other developed world countries doesn't seem like an especially high hurdle. The Democrats' so-called reconciliation bill includes $550 billion just for climate change spending within the US. $100 billion among the wealthy nations seems like the kind of thing they could have gotten done in 10 minutes at the G20 summit a few days ago.
"But UNDP’s analysis shows that fossil fuel subsidy reforms can also be unfair and harmful for households and society if they are poorly designed. While fossil fuel subsidies tend to be an unequalising tool - as the lion’s share of the benefits concentrate among the rich - these subsidies also represent an important portion of poor peoples’ incomes that otherwise must be paid for energy consumption. Fossil fuel subsidies’ removal thus could easily become an income- and energy-impoverishing strategy. This contributes to making fossil fuels reform difficult, and imposes a key barrier to transitioning to clean and renewable energy sources." This part is certainly true. And not just for poor people, energy costs are a significant part of every household's budget. If people see their costs skyrocket, that's a big time election-loser for whoever is in office.
ReplyDeleteI presently have the dealer looking for a Prius Prime. 50 mpg and a 25 mile range on electricity only. I could do most of my local driving without using gasoline. Another more expensive alternative is the Tesla. Supposedly an Aptera all electric two-seater car will be available next year with a range of 1000 miles on a single charge. Range is assisted by built-in solar cells. Of course, the best solution in terms of global warming and the environment is extensive public transportation which would be available to the less wealthy. If I were a German, I could turn in my driver's license and get a free year of public transportation. If we could cluster in towns connected by public transportation and walk or bike locally, it might be a nice way to live.
ReplyDeleteStanley, yes. Although, speaking as someone who lived without a car as a young adult: as soon as the temperature drops below freezing, or it snows, the appeal of waiting for a train or a bus drops pretty significantly.
DeleteFWIW, this site indicates that the US isn't among the top 25 countries in the world when it comes to energy subsidies. I could be wrong, but I don't think the US does broad-based energy subsidies. I am sure there are programs in various US government entities which subsidize home heating for people living in poverty.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.iea.org/topics/energy-subsidies
Fuel prices can vary substantially from country to country, too, at least for automobile fuels. I get a fresh reminder whenever I need to buy gasoline in Canada. I've never driven in any other foreign country (saw my brother driving in Scotland on 'the wrong side of the street' and said, Nope! - ain't even going to try it!) but I understand gasoline is substantially more expensive in Europe. I think that's partially due to government policy, as the EU is trying to disincentivize reliance on fossil fuels.
Gasoline has always been heavily taxed in European countries. We started traveling there and renting cars back in the early 70s and have made many trips over the years. We always rent a car. The cars are generally much smaller than ours and get incredible mileage. Manual shift is standard there. If you go there and need an automatic you will pay a lot higher rental fee. Very glad I learned to drive a stick shift when I was 16! The cities and towns are very old, so the streets are very narrow. They could build narrow streets because cars didn’t exist for hundreds of more years. The last thing you want when renting and driving a car in Europe is a big car that can barely squeeze down the road and is impossible to park. People grocery shop for many things - like bread and meat and vegetables- every day. They seldom have more than 2 bags - often only one. They walk a lot ( and don’t have an obesity problem) because in the cities and even many towns, everything is close - because that’s what was practical hundreds of years ago. I doubt they spend any more on gasoline for their cars than we do in spite of the high taxes because the cars are so fuel efficient. They also use their cars less than we do on a daily basis on average. It’s a very different way of life, one that evolved over centuries, and cannot be easily replicated in the US except in a relatively few places.
DeletePublic transportation is unlikely to ever be an option for us here. They have city buses in Omaha and Lincoln, but passenger train services outstate ended sometime in the 1960s. The trains used to stop in every little town. They were spaced about ten miles apart when the trains were steam engines and had to take on water frequently.
ReplyDeleteAgriculture is heavily dependent on fossil fuels. Short of going back to horse and oxen drawn implements, I don't see that changing.
Instead of fossil fuels, one can think of chemical fuels. Hydrocarbons can be synthesized from air and water but, of course, energy is needed to do that. Also, hydrogen can be separated by hydrolysis and used as a combustible fuel. One thing that has to be remembered is that electric motors are much more efficient compared to internal combustion engines.
ReplyDelete