Canada moves towards reducing electricity sector emissions
VW up! minicar to launch in December with 3-cylinder gasoline engines; natural gas engine to follow

IISD pushing for national pledges to phase-out fossil fuel subsidies

The IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development), a Canada-based, public policy research institute, is recommending that the upcoming Rio+20 meeting—the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development gathering scheduled for 4–6 June 2012—focus on a few high-impact initiatives that will help create the enabling framework for sustainable development.

Specifically, IISD is pushing for a national pledge to phase out fossil-fuel subsidies to free up valuable fiscal resources that can be redirected to fund other sustainable development priorities, provide the opportunity to introduce more targeted measures to support low-income households, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help incentivize investments in renewable energy.

IISD is also suggesting a second component: that pledging countries assist other countries phase out fossil-fuel subsidies that undermine sustainable development.

Governments use fossil-fuel subsidies as policy tools to achieve objectives such as alleviating energy poverty; increasing domestic production; reducing living costs of the poor; or gaining political support, IISD notes. However, the organization points to the unintended consequences that come with the use of subsidies: subsidies are generally costly; they significantly increase global and local pollution; and they are socially regressive.

What we choose as our energy future will be vital to how sustainable our development is. Subsidies to nuclear, biofuels and renewables should also be estimated and evaluated against the policy goals they are designed to meet. Renewables will play a major role in any sustainable future energy system, and there are strong reasons to support them. Nevertheless, evaluating the performance of subsidies and reforming them to be more effective and efficient in meeting their policy goals would be a very useful exercise as the world moves towards a major scaling up of renewables-based electricity generation.

The proposed Pledge focuses only on fossil-fuel subsidies, but an alternative option could extend the scope of the pledge to cover all energy subsidies. A pledge to reform all energy subsidies would need to be supported by more research to understand the scale and impact of the subsidies for nuclear energy, biofuels and renewables-based electricity.




That is about as likely to get anywhere as the pope is of declaring my colon a holy relic.


Less likely. Who knows what moves the pope? The API, however, is fully predictable and they would never allow their sacred cows to be threatened.


Fossil fuel subsidies are being overtaken by bio-fuel subsidies in many countries. One can debate which one is the worse for humanity?


Giving poor people the value of the subsidy would let them choose what to do with it. They might buy solar cookers or make gobar-gas generators to avoid having to buy cooking fuel. Once purchased, they'd be able to keep the subsidy instead of spending it on fuel. The government would eventually be able to phase out or re-direct the subsidy, and the savings would remain.


Or - just continue headlong into debt and let the gov decide what to do with our money PLUS the money they create (your childrens money).

Works for Cuba.


Any direct or indirect subsidies for fuel for our gas guzzlers is questionable. I agree with E-P that promotion of domestic solar power + appropriate energy storage units would be a much wiser thing to do.

However, the majority does not seem to support sustainable solutions yet.
Our children and grand children will.

The comments to this entry are closed.