- A new International Monetary Fund study shows that $5.2 trillion was spent globally on fossil fuel subsidies in 2017, representing a half-trillion-dollar increase since 2015.
- If nations had reduced subsidies in a way to create efficient fossil fuel pricing in 2015, the IMF believes that it “would have lowered global carbon emissions by 28 percent and fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 46 percent, and increased government revenue by 3.8 percent of GDP.”
- Spending so much on fossil fuel subsidies compared to other programs seems indefensible when up to 80% of the US could be powered by renewables, in principal.
Sahid Fawaz from Labor 411 writes:
“A new report sheds light on the vast gulf between what the United States spends on fossil fuels subsidies versus education.
“A new International Monetary Fund (IMF) study shows that USD$5.2 trillion was spent globally on fossil fuel subsidies in 2017. The equivalent of over 6.5% of global GDP of that year, it also represented a half-trillion dollar increase since 2015 when China ($1.4 trillion), the United States ($649 billion) and Russia ($551 billion) were the largest subsidizers.
Despite nations worldwide committing to a reduction in carbon emissions and implementing renewable energy through the Paris Agreement, the IMF’s findings expose how fossil fuels continue to receive huge amounts of taxpayer funding. The report explains that fossil fuels account for 85% of all global subsidies and that they remain largely attached to domestic policy. Had nations reduced subsidies in a way to create efficient fossil fuel pricing in 2015, the International Monetary Fund believes that it ‘would have lowered global carbon emissions by 28 percent and fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 46 percent, and increased government revenue by 3.8 percent of GDP . . .’
Whilst cheaper renewable energy creates more competition in the energy markets, it also decreases the cost-effectiveness of fossil fuel subsidies…”
See full story here.