Comments on: G20 Leaders Agree To Phase Out “Inefficient” Fossil Fuel Subsidies http://cleantechnica.com/2013/09/25/g20-leaders-agree-phase-inefficient-fossil-fuel-subsidies/ Clean Tech News & Views: Solar Energy News. Wind Energy News. EV News. & More. Sun, 28 Dec 2014 10:48:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.1 By: Bill_Woods http://cleantechnica.com/2013/09/25/g20-leaders-agree-phase-inefficient-fossil-fuel-subsidies/#comment-183569 Thu, 26 Sep 2013 01:46:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=56783#comment-183569 $500 billion is a world figure. For G20 countries, it’s maybe a fifth of that. For the US, it’s about $13 billion. The lion’s share is governments of oil-exporting countries selling petroleum products to domestic consumers for a fraction of what they would have gotten by exporting the oil.

]]> By: JamesWimberley http://cleantechnica.com/2013/09/25/g20-leaders-agree-phase-inefficient-fossil-fuel-subsidies/#comment-183525 Wed, 25 Sep 2013 21:03:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=56783#comment-183525 It´s very slightly more than just a communiqué. The mechanism is weak – peer reviews by foreign experts, a stock tool of the OECD – but it exists. They don´t have any effect on a united national bureaucracy, but lend useful prestige support to reformers in a divided one.

]]> By: Ivor O'Connor http://cleantechnica.com/2013/09/25/g20-leaders-agree-phase-inefficient-fossil-fuel-subsidies/#comment-183452 Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:38:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=56783#comment-183452 “The G20 leaders also agreed to phase out “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies.”

I need a bit of clarification. When is a fossil fuel subsidy ever NOT inefficient? It seems like an oxymoron.

Will removing these “inefficient” subsidies result in a 500 billion annual savings? Or is 500 billion annually the total for all subsidies? You stated the former but the quotation stated the latter.

]]>