![]() Subsidies also tend to be lower in many developing nations. In places like North America and Europe, on the other hand, fossil fuel subsidies are much lower, and getting rid of them would have a relatively small impact on the market. That makes sense, because these are the regions where subsidies are the largest. Oil and gas exporting regions, such as the Middle East, Russia and Latin America, could see substantial emissions reductions, perhaps equal to or greater than their Paris pledges. On the contrary, the research suggests that impacts would vary substantially by region, even if the total global effect is small. It's not to say that getting rid of subsidies would have no effect anywhere in the world. ![]() "But nobody had actually worked out the analysis, and that's the contribution of this paper." "I think this will be surprising news to some people, because folks had just imagined that if you did subsidy reform, that would be beneficial to climate," said David Victor, co-director of the Laboratory on International Law and Regulation at the University of California, San Diego, who was not a part of the new study. In other words, the effect of removing fossil fuel subsidies would fall far short of the reductions promised in the Paris Agreement-which many experts calculate are still not enough to stay within the desired 1.5- or 2-degree-Celsius temperature target. In the meantime, the national pledges submitted under the Paris climate agreement would add up to an annual decrease of about 4 billion to 8 billion tons. Doing so would have a modest impact on global greenhouse gas emissions, the research finds, cutting carbon dioxide emissions by a half-billion to 2 billion metric tons annually.Ĭurrently, global carbon dioxide emissions come to about 40 billion tons each year. ![]() The study, published yesterday in the journal Nature, used an ensemble of five models to investigate the impact of ending fossil fuel subsidies worldwide by the year 2030, assuming both high and low oil prices in the future. Now, new research suggests that removing fossil fuel subsidies might not have the global effect that some climate advocates were hoping for. It's a simple idea, but one that's been sparsely investigated by scientists. Oil, natural gas and coal companies worldwide receive hundreds of billions of dollars each year in tax breaks or other subsidies-and some experts argue that cutting them off would drive prices up and consumption down. Ending financial assistance for fossil fuel companies has long been discussed as a tactic to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and encourage investment in renewables. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |