Fossil Fuels

Published on February 5th, 2014 | by DeSmog Blog


Fossil Fuel Subsidies Are Back Up To 2008 Levels

February 5th, 2014 by  

Originally published on DeSmogBlog.
By Ben Jervey.

No Matter How You Count Them, Fossil Fuel Subsidies Are As High As Ever

The exact worth of massive global fossil fuel subsidies is incredibly hard to figure. There’s no real consistency in the definitions of subsidies, or how they should be calculated. As a result, estimates of global subsidy support for fossil fuels vary widely.

According to a new analysis by the Worldwatch Institute, these estimates range from $523 billion to over $1.9 trillion, depending on what is considered a “subsidy” and how exactly they are tallied.

Worldwatch Institute research fellow Philipp Tagwerker, who authored the brief, explains:

The lack of a clear definition of “subsidy” makes it hard to compare the different methods used to value support for fossil fuels, but the varying approaches nevertheless illustrate global trends. Fossil fuel subsidies declined in 2009, increased in 2010, and then in 2011 reached almost the same level as in 2008. The decrease in subsidies was due almost entirely to fluctuations in fuel prices rather than to policy changes.

In other words, though the estimates vary widely, they all agree that fossil fuel subsidies are back up to the record levels they were at in 2008, before the financial crisis caused a temporary dip. So while world leaders, including President Obama, talk about ending subsidies that benefit one of the world’s richest industries, there hasn’t been any actual reduction.

Why such difficulty calculating the subsidies? For starters, subsidies typically fall into two broadly different categories: production subsidies and consumption subsidies. Production subsidies are what you think of when you hear about special tax rates for oil companies or grants or loan guarantees to “clean coal” projects. Basically, they include anything that lowers the cost of energy production — through tax advantages, loan assistance, grants, or anything else.

Consumption subsidies refer to any financial mechanisms that lower the cost of energy for the end consumers. Think of the artificially low gasoline prices in Venezuela, or even something such as tax breaks for home heating fuel.

According to Tagwerker, production subsidies are most common in wealthier, industrialized countries, while consumption subsidies are more common in developing countries with populations struggling to afford fossil fuels.

The $523 billion number above — standing as the bottom boundary of the range of global fossil fuel subsidies — represents only the consumption subsidies for coal, electricity, oil and, natural gas in 38 developing countries, as estimated by the International Energy Agency (IEA). It doesn’t include any production subsidies at all.

Production subsidies are often quoted at $100 billion a year, a number that comes from a June 2010 report to the G-20 leaders from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the IEA, the World Bank, and the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). But that doesn’t include so-called “support measures” like:

  • export credit agencies (estimated at $50-100 billion annually)
  • cost of securing fossil fuel shipping routes (estimated at $20-500 billion/year)

Then there’s the issue of externalities. Tagwerker argues that external costs — like those associated with resource scarcity, environmental degradation, and human health — should be considered in subsidy calculations, as their absence artificially lowers the true cost of fossil fuel energy.

“Without factoring in such considerations, renewable subsidies cost between 1.7¢ and 15¢ per kilowatt-hour (kWh), higher than the estimated 0.1–0.7¢ per kWh for fossil fuels,” writes Tagwerker. “If externalities were included, however, estimates indicate fossil fuels would cost 23.8¢ more per kWh, while renewables would cost around 0.5¢ more per kWh.”

A recent report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) took a unique approach to subsidy calculations, lumping them into pre-tax and post-tax groupings rather than production and consumption.

The IMF then tacked on a modest $25-per-ton carbon tax to capture the external costs of climate pollution. After tallying up all the various subsidies, the IMF came up with a whopping $1.9 trillion every year, or roughly 2.5-percent of the global GDP in 2012.

Finally, Tagwerker considers the entire subsidy through the lens of climate pollution. “From an emissions perspective, 15 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions receive $110 per ton in support, while only 8 percent are subject to a carbon price, effectively nullifying carbon market contributions as a measure to reduce emissions.”

Image Credit: Subsidies via Shutterstock.

Check out our new 93-page EV report, based on over 2,000 surveys collected from EV drivers in 49 of 50 US states, 26 European countries, and 9 Canadian provinces.

Tags: , , ,

About the Author

The DeSmogBlog Project began in January 2006 and quickly became the world’s number one source for accurate, fact based information regarding global warming misinformation campaigns. TIME Magazine named DeSmogBlog in its "25 Best Blogs of 2011" list. Our articles and stories are routinely highlighted in the world’s most popular news outlets and blogs: New York Times DotEarth, Huffington Post, Daily Kos, ThinkProgress, and Treehugger, to name a few. DeSmogBlog has won the Canadian Public Relation Society’s Leadership in Communication award, and was voted Canada’s “Best Group Blog” by their peers.

  • Bob_Wallace

    One of the best ways to support renewables would be to make people more aware of how high the external cost of fossil fuels actually is.

    Once people start to understand how much they are paying for their coal produced electricity with their tax and health insurance premium dollars they will start to understand what an incredible value wind and solar are.

    • Rick Kargaard

      The external cost of all industry is high. It is the burning of valuable resources for energy and transportation that is the real problem.

  • Rick Kargaard

    Let’s be a little fair here. All industry has environmental and resource costs.As far as direct subsidies for fossil fuels are concerned, most of them are designed to benefit and raise the standard of living of the poorest people in the world. As for fossil fuel industries being the richest, well be very careful if you invest in oil stocks. They tend to be boom and bust and very risky. Banking incomes and profits on the other hand can be obsene, and bailouts when they get stupid could be considered very expensive subsidies. Agriculture is subsidized by practically all countries and if environmental and resource costs were added could be huge. In much of the world the resources such as coal in the U.S and oil in Alberta is owned by governments and produce huge revenue streams for government through royalties. Any subsidies to companies are usually to mitigate risk in developing new resources, with an eye to creating new government revenue and creating jobs. Creating jobs is always good for votes.The real villian In resource depletion and pollution is overconsumption (yes, you and me) and overpopulation. In the words of the late Jacques-Yves Cousteau ” Overconsumption and overpopulation underlie every environmental problem we face today.”

    • JamesWimberley

      The best way to help poor people everywhere is to give them some money, or to provide schooling and health care for their children. The worst way is to subsidise their fossil fuel use. No, Rick, fossil fuel subsidies are a colossal rent grab by rich and powerful vested interests. Fossil fuels should not be subsidised but heavily taxed.

      • Bob_Wallace

        Without government fuel subsidies in many developing countries transportation would grind to a halt. Many buses, taxis and “tuk-tuks” are privately owned and couldn’t affordably carry people around if they had to pay the actual price of fuel.

        • Rick Kargaard

          Taking these subsidies away could also force many poor to use wood for cooking and heat, True it can be considered renewable but it is far more polluting and leads to deforestation and desertification (almost ran out of breath with those big words). LPG is much cleaner but not a perfect solution.

      • Rick Kargaard

        I agree with spreading the wealth a little but that is not happening, even in western countries where health care is often denied because of cost. Education is of course excellent but it is usually provided with a bias, even in our so called enlightened societies.

Back to Top ↑