Removing fossil fuel subsidies will not reduce CO2 emissions as much as hoped

February 8, 2018, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
Figures showing global and regional impact of subsidy removal on CO2 emissions. Credit: IIASA

Removing fossil fuel subsidies would have only a small effect on CO2 emissions and renewable energy use, new research has shown. The largest emissions savings would be in oil and gas exporting countries, where fewer poor people would be affected, and subsidy removal can be aided by currently low oil prices.

Fossil fuel subsidies amount to hundreds of billions of dollars worldwide, and removing them has been held up as a key answer to . Unfortunately, it is not the silver bullet many had hoped, according to an analysis led by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IISA) published in the journal Nature.

Removing fossil subsidies would only slightly slow the growth of CO2 emissions, with the result that by 2030, they would only be 1-5% lower than if subsidies had been maintained, regardless of whether are low or high. This equates to 0.5-2 gigatonnes (Gt/year) of CO2 by 2030, significantly less than the voluntary climate pledges made under the Paris climate agreement, which add up to 4-8 Gt/year and are themselves not enough to limit warming to 2°C.

"The reason for this small overall effect is two-fold," says IIASA researcher Jessica Jewell, lead author on the paper. "First, these subsidies generally apply only to oil, gas, and electricity. That means that in some cases the removal of subsidies causes a switch to more emissions-intensive coal. Second, while these subsidies add up to substantial sums of money, the rate per unit of energy is not high enough to have a big effect on global energy demand, which would decrease by only 1-7% after subsidies are removed." In addition, subsidy removal would not boost renewable energy use significantly, the team found. This is because it is generally cheaper to reduce energy demand than to substitute subsidized fuels with renewables.

Although the global effect on emissions is low, the impact varies between regions. The largest effects of removing subsidies were found in areas that export oil and gas, such as Russia, Latin America, and the Middle East and North Africa. In these regions, the emissions savings caused by subsidy removal would either equal or exceed their climate pledges.

Developing economies which are not major oil and gas exporters would generally experience much smaller effects of removing the subsidies. Some of the models used even suggested a rise in emissions for some regions, such as Africa and India, as a result of switching from unsubsidized oil and gas to coal.

Subsidy removal and the poor

The regional differences highlight one very important aspect of subsidy removal that needs to be taken into consideration: the impacts on the poor. Many fossil fuel subsidies were put in place to help those with lower income, and despite the fact that most of the money goes to the rich, the poorer you are, the more of your household budget comes from these subsidies, so their removal would have a much larger impact on daily life.

For instance, removing subsidies means that the switch to modern fuels may become out of reach for many , the results show. As a consequence they are stuck using firewood or charcoal, which both emit more greenhouse gases and are damaging to health.

Fortunately, the highest numbers of poor people are concentrated in the regions where removal of subsidies will have the weakest effect on CO2 emissions. Removing subsidies in richer oil and gas exporting regions would therefore provide significantly greater emissions savings and have a less detrimental impact on the poor. This is facilitated by today's low oil prices.

"The governments of oil and gas producing countries are already under pressure to reduce spending on subsidies as revenues shrink," says Jewell. "This provides a unique political opportunity to remove subsidies in countries where it will have the largest effect on emissions and the smallest impact on the poor."

Ultimately, these results do show benefits of removing fossil fuel subsidies, especially in certain regions, but care is needed for implementation. "We're not saying: don't get rid of subsidies, we're saying that we need to be aware that it might have less of an effect than hoped, and it could have a disproportionally large on the poor," says Keywan Riahi, study co-author and IIASA Energy Program director. "But well-designed policies can achieve removal without affecting the poor. A scheme being trialed in India, for example, removed subsidies on cooking gas in general but continues to support the poorest households through rebates."

Explore further: Axing fossil fuel subsidies scant help on climate: study

More information: Jessica Jewell et al. Limited emission reductions from fuel subsidy removal except in energy-exporting regions, Nature (2018). DOI: 10.1038/nature25467

Related Stories

Axing fossil fuel subsidies scant help on climate: study

February 8, 2018

Getting rid of massive subsidies for oil, gas and coal will not significantly curb carbon pollution or speed the transition to a greener global economy, researchers said Wednesday, challenging widely held assumptions.

New research urges a rethink on global energy subsidies

March 13, 2017

The hidden toll that subsidies for electricity, fossil fuels, and transport have on social welfare, economic growth and technological innovation needs to be exposed through better research says a new paper in Ecological Economics ...

Canada blocked climate change audit: official

May 16, 2017

Canada's auditor general blasted Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government Tuesday for effectively blocking an audit of efforts to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies in the fight against climate change.

IEA calls for scrapping $312 bln in fuel subsidies

April 6, 2011

The International Energy Agency is calling for 312 billion dollars in fuel subsidies to be scrapped in a bid to promote clean energy sources, according to a report presented in Abu Dhabi on Wednesday.

G20 states spend $88bn in fossil fuel exploration subsidies

November 11, 2014

Leading world economies are spending $88 billion (71 billion euros) a year in fossil fuel exploration subsidies, sapping investment from low-carbon alternatives and increasing the risk of "dangerous climate change", a report ...

Recommended for you

The long dry: global water supplies are shrinking

December 13, 2018

A global study has found a paradox: our water supplies are shrinking at the same time as climate change is generating more intense rain. And the culprit is the drying of soils, say researchers, pointing to a world where drought-like ...

New climate model to be built from the ground up

December 13, 2018

Facing the certainty of a changing climate coupled with the uncertainty that remains in predictions of how it will change, scientists and engineers from across the country are teaming up to build a new type of climate model ...

2 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Steve_S2
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2018
Recent number crunching shows that the Collective Annual Subsidies received by Oil & Gas co's worldwide are tipping in around 1 Trillion Dollars per year.

Now, if ALL Subsidies were stopped Jan.01.2019 and redirected to Solar, Wind & Grid Power Storage & Fast Response system projects within those nations that use the subsidies, the changes would be most certainly seen, felt & acknowledge by mid 2020.

Of course transportation of goods & products would be affected due to fossil fuel costs, so likely 25% of the subsidies should be focused on BEV's from passenger to commercial transport including shipping if/when feasible. There is amazing progress on that front too.
Turgent
1 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2018
This shouldn't be a surprise. Subsidies only detrimentally distort the economics of anything they touch. They do a great job for special interests. Consider the insanity and irony of providing subsidies to corn ethanol, which essentially is a synthetic fossil fuel. The money would be better spent on R&D, like a thorium reactor in lieu of uranium reactors. Another great irony is those supporting reduced CO2 emission should have gotten behind Trump's tax reform. It more than any subsidy discourages unnecessary housing development and the high structural carbon footprint which goes with it.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.