Monday 28 April 2014

Green Jobs See Huge Growth Globally: Why is Canada Missing Out, published in Common Sense Canadian April 28, 2014

Green jobs see huge growth globally: Why is Canada missing out?

2
Posted April 28, 2014 by Will Dubitsky in Economics
Green jobs see big growth
There are those like Stephen Harper who repeatedly say we must choose between economic development and sustainable development.
And there are those who, concerned about the environment and the latest reports from the International Panel on Climate Change, suggest that economic development and sustainable development should be reconciled.  Countries such as Germany are often cited as cases in point.  Most environmental organizations fall into this latter reconciliation category.

Sustainability and economic development go hand in hand

That said, the term reconciliation seems totally out of place when one considers that the green sectors are among the fastest growing and highest job creation sectors of our times and that this growth can only get better as nations adopt more aggressive approaches to fully participate in the new economy.  Moreover, what especially makes this growth attractive is that the green economy is every bit as diversified, if not more so, as Canada’s traditional natural resource-based economy.
Accordingly, rather than the reconciliation of opposing forces, we should be talking about the green economy as the prime focus of Finance, Economic Development and Treasury ministers, supported by a minister responsible for the green economy.  If this “attitude” was to be adopted in Canada, we would be assured of significant progress towards synergistic economic and sustainable development objectives.

Green sectors deliver big job creation, economic development

There are 3.5 million green jobs in the EU and 1.2 million EU jobs in renewables.  Germany’s renewable energy sector alone boasts 382,000 jobs, making it among the largest in that country.
Renewable job growth is so strong, Europe’s  wind sector faces a shortage of about 7000 positions/year.
The Economist: China's going green...but is it fast enough?
China is investing $70 billion a year in renewable energy
Meanwhile, China added a whopping 16.1 gigawatts (GW) of new wind capacity just in 2013, bringing total domestic wind capacity to 91.4 GW.  (To put this in relative terms, Québec’s current entire electricity production capacity is 43 GW).  By 2020, China may reach 200 GW of installed wind capacity along with 500,000 jobs in China’s wind sector.
China also added 12 GW of solar capacity in 2013.  Currently, there are 300,000 jobs in China’s solar photovoltaic domain and another 800,000 in Chinese solar heating and cooling.
Of course, there is much more to the green economy than just clean energy.  The green economy is also about technologies to reduce waste and therefore improve business profits over the long run.  This includes technologies aimed at reducing pollution, toxic by-products, and above all, those technologies which reduce the production of waste at the source, in the manufacturing  process.
Then there are the exceptional opportunities pertaining to the transportation sector. Being nearly entirely dependent on fossil fuels, transport must be seriously revamped.  The right legislative and fiscal frameworks for the auto sector would spur both innovation and new supply chain products and industries.
What is stopping us from working on these high job creation sustainable development solutions?

Time to stop subsidizing fossil fuels

One of the greatest impediments to migrating away from the traditional economy rests with the fact that we continue subsidizing the problem, big time.  Indeed the fossil sectors are the world’s most subsidized.
According to the International Energy Agency, we are subsidizing greenhouse gases at the level of $110/ tonne.
Particularly telling is the data churned out by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on 2011 fossil fuels direct subsidies, plus the costs of externalities – such as the impacts of climate change on infrastructure and pollution on health.  The IMF came up with a global total of $1.9 Trillion/year in subsidies and government costs associated with fossil fuels.  Among nations evaluated by the IMF,Canada shamefully ranked 14th in public subsidies for fossils at $26.4B/year.
Consequently, ending these subsidies would not only level the playing field for more equitable competition from clean technologies, but would also free up financial resources to support the shift to a green economy.
And the payoff is green jobs – lots of them.  That is, a green shift offers 6 to 8 times more jobs for a given unit of investment when compared with government investments in the fossil fuel economy.  To this effect, the BlueGreen Alliance published a report indicating that $1.3 billion in subsidies for the oil and gas sector supports just 2,300 Canadian jobs, while the same amount invested in the green economy would support 18,000 to 20,000 jobs.
Not only does the green economy give a better bang for government bucks, but a green economy is also very unlike a resource-based economy, which concentrates the wealth in the specific geographic areas where the fossil and natural resources are found.  This is to say that a green economy spreads the wealth opportunities all over the country and planet.
The production of clean energy, the manufacturing of clean technologies and the maintenance of clean tech systems can occur in most parts of Canada and around the globe.
Other sources of revenue for a green shift could include auctions of emission credits under a cap and trade scheme, and stiff, progressive penalties for non-compliance on environmental legislation.  Moreover, public banks and export corporations could play a major role in supporting the green economy as is the case in China, Germany, the UK, the EU and Brazil.
Finally, with respect to funding to support the transition to a green economy, it is important to note that both Harper and Trudeau support an exceptionally low corporate tax rate of 15%, a policy that has resulted in $575 billion lying dormant in corporate liquidity – a formula for austerity budgets.
In other words, with a higher corporate tax rate, there would be  plenty of money around to support a fast-forward catch-up to other nations regarding the green economy as well as improvements in job creation, health, child care, innovation and so on.

Removing the roadblocks

The main obstacles in the way to moving to a diversified, high-growth, high-job creation, green economy are our governments and political leaders – incapable of thinking outside of the box.
Indeed, both Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau regard Canada as a natural resource/fossil fuel export economy and place an undue emphasis on tar sands exports, supporting pipelines andtrade agreements.  Both seem oblivious to the fact that China and the EU have aggressive green economy policies, with objectives to reduce their dependency on fossil fuel imports.
To a lesser extent, the US has embarked on a similar path.
Both Trudeau and Harper also seem oblivious to the UN Conference on Trade and Development(UNCTAD) conclusion that, “apart from short-term price booms, the ‘terms of trade’ – the price of resource exports relative to manufactured goods – have been falling for more than a century.”  Suffice it to say, neither Harper or Trudeau is prepared for the emerging global green economy – the economy of tomorrow.
Finally, green advocates have got to get out of the paradigm of economic and sustainable development reconciliation and start talking about attractive, green economic development strategies.

Sunday 6 April 2014

Québec Solidaire: Well-meaning Disservice to A Prosperous Green Economy

To Kevin,

First, I would like to say I am sorry about the appearance of the nature of our exchanges on Twitter yesterday.

Twitter can at times be a very inadequate tool for communication when the subject is complex and a full response requires much more than the 100 or so characters left after including Twitter addresses.  Worse a disagreement in this limited format can seem like a confrontation when this is not the case.  Regretfully, both of these factors were at play during our exchanges regarding Québec Solidaire (QS).  Accordingly, I am offering you this more complete picture.

Second, I think we are on the same page for a prosperous, inclusive and green economy.  However, when I apply these criteria to QS as well as the other parties, no party responds to what I am looking for as well as excludes that which I definitely don't want.

To begin on QS deficiencies, the QS policy on the environment is a complete departure of from green economy paths elsewhere in the world in that QS calls for financing of the green economy mostly from a redistribution of the wealth over to green causes along with government being the principal financier of such initiatives.  This puts the green economy in the same category as social programs and as a result it's a recipe for failure rather than one for economic development.
 
Moreover, as Françoise David has repeatedly said, under the QS model, QS would heavily invest in public transportation for all as its principal solution.  Nowhere else in the world does the "solution" depend primarily on a single measure.

Add to this, the QS proposal to nationalize the wind sector when there are very few Quebec indigenous wind technologies -- an absurd formula that would result in an international green private sector boycott of Quebec.

The Chinese, European, Brazilian Indian and US governments provide combinations of legislation, policies, fiscal measures, programs, incentives/disincentives and financial leveraging measures to foster a change in economic paradigms that favour private sector investment in the green economy.   These  countries have  recognized that one requires an over-arching approach to engender transformative change.

There are 3.5M jobs in the EU green sectors and 1.2M in their renewable sector.  In Germany, the green sectors are collectively larger than the auto industry. 
http://commonsensecanadian.ca/germany-shows-thriving-green-economy-possible/


Indeed, the green sectors have become one of the highest job creation sectors of our times and this has been achieved by promoting the migration to a green economy as economic development, as well as sustainable development, solutions.  The green economy is in fact a good news win-win story.  In this regard, a Canadian BlueGreen Alliance report has indicated that there are six to eight times more jobs per subsidy investment unit associated with green investments when compared with similar investments in the fossil fuel sectors.
http://bluegreencanada.ca/node/175

Yet,there is nothing in their platform about creating new wealth - nothing for a prosperous green economy.

QS for me lives down to the stereotype image to the effect that a green economy and economic development are at odds with one another.  Harper conveys the same message.

Rated against what I want -- a prosperous inclusive green economy -- QS fails on 2 counts. 

Then there is what I definitely cannot support 1) a party with no plan for economic development and 2) a party that advocates Quebec sovereignty.  These are two of the three themes of QS.

This of course leaves me with no party to support.  For the first time in my life, I will vote for an independent candidate as a protest vote in that each  of the four parties has baggage that I cannot accept under any circumstances.  I hope this is the last time I feel compelled to do so and that the next time around there will be an NDP provincial party.

In closing, it is incredible how many people have written letters and articles published in newspapers to the effect that they feel like orphans in this election.  The following is just one example of this phenomenon.
http://www.lapresse.ca/debats/votre-opinion/201403/31/01-4752917-les-orphelins-de-centre-gauche.php


Your way of compromise may be better than mine.  Indeed, that kind of formula has worked for me 99.9% of the time - Quebec 2014 is the first and I hope last exception for me. 

Wednesday 2 April 2014

Justin Trudeau: Just another “Con” man?

Posted March 2, 2014 by Will Dubitsky in Politics  (The Common Sense Canadian, March 2, 2014 http://commonsensecanadian.ca/justin-trudeau-just-another-con-man/)Justin Trudeau-Just another Con man
Justin Trudeau addresses a progressive think tank in Washington, DC (photo: Chip Somodevllla/Getty)
Justin Trudeau wants to project a young, fresh face, representing all the good things that Canadians want – a man who would do politics differently.  But the gap between reality and fairytale is extraordinary.
If one looks at what he has said to date, one finds a man with tired old ideas;  a limited understanding of, and sensitivity for, many major issues; and a puppet serving Bay Street, Big Oil and other powerful interests. The same powerful interests served by the Harper administration.

A middle class fairy tale

Most telling is Trudeau’s supposed concern for the middle class.  Though 80% of Canadians have seen their revenues decline or stagnate over the last 3 decades – income inequalities are at an all time extreme – Trudeau, like Stephen Harper, has concluded that low corporate taxes are the way to go for maintaining what they perceive to be a prosperous and rich Canada.
But Trudeau goes one step further to the right than Harper.  He has repeatedly expressed the view that now is not the time to lower the corporate tax rate, implying that, at a later time, a lower corporate tax rate could be an option.
To put all this in context,  the lowering of corporate tax began with the Liberals and was accelerated by the Conservatives.  The result is that: 1) At 15%, Canada has the lowest corporate tax rate in the G8; and 2) approximately $575B lies dormant in corporate liquidity.
Together, these factors imply that having the lowest corporate tax offers very few competitive advantages and that a better distribution of the wealth could be achieved with higher corporate taxes and fewer fiscal escape clauses/deductions.  The additional accrued revenues could be invested in economic development and regional diversification; youth employment; health; innovation for the jobs of tomorrow; public transportation and other urban infrastructure; day care -  to name just a few examples.
Further on this theme, Kevin Page, the former Parliamentary Budget Officer, concluded that a low corporate tax rate limits government manoeuvrability to that of austerity budgets.
In his own clumsy fashion, Trudeau has confirmed Kevin Page’s analysis in that he recognizes that the Liberal Party of Canada’s (LPC’s) own Harper-like policies on wealth distribution would produce Harper-like results. To be more specific, to prepare Canadians for such an eventuality, or the “necessity” of this Bay Street accommodation, Trudeau has indicated that the post election LPC budget could  very well be an austerity budget.
In other words, there is a disconnect between Trudeau’s supposed concern about the middle class and reality. In the absence of any serious attempt at redistribution of the wealth – something in which Trudeau appears not to believe in – he can only offer a middle class fairy tale.  This is a backdrop for many Trudeau’s positions on other issues.
No wonder Justin has described income splitting as “a decent idea”, even though 85% of Canadians would receive no benefit, while the majority of the top 1% of income earners would get $6500 and up.  So much for his preoccupation with the middle class.

Appeasing Big Oil, denying science

Turning to the environment, once again Trudeau has much more in common with Harper than most think, particularly when it comes to the denial of scientific evidence. It’s high time to debunk the myths about Trudeau’s “concerns” in this domain.
Trudeau’s position on Keystone XL is case in point.  According to Justin, the opposition to Keystone XL to transport tar sands bitumen to the US Golf coast is not based on scientific evidence.  Yet life-cycle emissions related to tar sands – from the extraction stage to the refining and production of major quantities of the by-product pet coke for use as a cheap, dirty fuel; and to the final consumption as fuels – place tar sands-derived substances in the range of 20% to 25% more emissions than those associated with conventional petroleum.
As if this extreme denial is not enough to put Trudeau in the same Big Oil camp as Harper, Trudeau has also complimented Premier Redford for promoting Keystone XL with references to Canada’s good environmental record!  Trudeau has been critical of Harper for not doing the same – despite Harper’s disastrous environmental legacy.
This is absolutely astounding!  After Harper’s dismantling of environmental protection legislation, weakening of the environmental impact analysis process, muzzling scientists, decimation of Canada’s environmental research capabilities especially as it relates to the impacts of climate change and the monitoring of Canada’s emissions, pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol,  and much much more, Trudeau, like Harper, perceives the environment as a PR challenge rather than a Mother Earth/humanity state of health challenge.
But the denial doesn’t stop there.  Trudeau bases part of his support for Keystone XL, as is the case with Stephen Harper, on the recent US Dept of State report which suggests that the environmental impacts pertaining to the approval of Keystone XL will be minimal.
Never mind that this report was written by authors close to the petroleum industry who concluded that if the US cannot import unrefined tar sands derivatives, the US would get it’s petroleum from elsewhere.
Never mind that a rejection of Keystone  XL would be a US and global game-changer, sending a clear signal to the globe that the US is serious about reducing its dependency on fossil fuels and will be looking to clean tech to address tomorrow’s energy needs.
Indeed, under these circumstances, it should come as no surprise that Trudeau did not distant himself from Jean Chrétien’s January 2014 remarks to the effect that it makes no sense to restrict tar sands development because we are going to need petroleum for a long time to come.

Falling behind Europe on emissions reduction, green economy

And the denial goes a notch higher when it comes to Trudeau’s views on national solutions to address climate change.  In keeping with the Liberals’ conciliatory legacy with Big Oil, this time, in reference to cap and trade, he claims that this environmental concept doesn’t have scientific merit. (Cap and trade is a model which penalizes companies that exceed their emissions limits and rewards companies that reduce emissions below their targets by being able to sell their credits to firms in the proceeding category.)
Never mind that Europe has had an Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) since 2005 and that the ETS has proven to be a potent compliment to other environmental policies. The results are such that at least 25 EU nations have been identified as likely to meet or beat the EU target 20% reduction of emissions by 2020, relative to 1990 levels.
Never mind that Germany has exceeded it’s Kyoto Protocol goal of a 21% reduction in emissions by 2012 with an achievement of a 25% reduction, all while having one the world’s strongest economies and a clean tech sector that has become bigger than the German auto sector.
Never mind that China has become the world’s largest investor in clean tech - with $67.7B and $61.3B invested in renewables in 2012 and 2013, respectively – and is now planning to introduce the first of seven pilot cap and trade schemes in Shenzhen.
As a former Government of Canada employee who worked in the field of sustainable development, it comes as no surprise that Trudeau’s “thinking” on Big Oil is both conciliatory and wishy-washy.  Emissions spiked up during the previous Liberal reign – as has been the case with the Conservatives at the helm.

The Liberals’ oil-friendly legacy

This LPC legacy was so because of, among other things: 1) the absence of effective legislative and fiscal measures; 2) the party’s continuation of generous subsidies for the fossil fuel sectors; and 3) a fossil fuel-friendly mindset as reflected in the Stéphane Dion proposal, prior to the Liberals’ defeat, to invest billions of government funds in the fossil fuel industry to help that “impoverished” sector reduce its emissions.
It is becoming increasingly evident that Trudeau is vague as to his environmental plans because of his alignment with Big Oil, a longstanding Liberal tradition.

Poor judgement, top-down leadership and Harper similarities

Further on the denial of science,  but in a different context, is the matter of the unusually long time – over a year – that it is taking for Health Canada to approve for use in Canada the drug  Mifepristone (a.k.a. RU-486), the abortion drug.  This, despite the fact that the drug has been in use around the world since 1988, when it was first approved in France.
Given the views on abortion of the minister in question, Rona Ambrose, the delays are suspect. But all Justin Trudeau could say on the exceptional delays is that he is not a medical expert.  Imagine the implications of him being in power with his weak judgement, when this is combined with his not wanting to upset Big Pharma and right wing groups.
Equally telling on Trudeau’s poor judgement and flippancy, was his “performance” on the Radio-Canada TV show Tout-le-monde-en-parle, on Feb 23, 2014.  The Ukrainian Ambassador to Canada, Vadym Prystaiko, quite aptly called for Trudeau to apologize for his “joke” on the show to the effect that Vladimir Putin would not be in a good mood to discuss the Ukrainian turn of events  because of the defeat of the Russian men’s hockey team in Sochi.  As the Ambassador said, 82 deaths in the clashes between security forces and the demonstrators is no laughing matter.

Trudeau’s lightweight Senate proposal

As for the Senate, I have saved this for near the end because I think we should go beyond the scandals of the moment, to the stuff that has implications for all Canadians. Let’s get real. The case has yet to be made as to why a different Senate, made up of unelected officials and appointed by another group of unelected officials, would improve Canadian democracy.  More important, with Senate retirements not mandatory until age 75, it means it would take at least two decades before this so-called different Senate would take shape.
Add to the Trudeau Senate cocktail the way in which he went about springing the news on “Independent” former Liberal Senators. Here one discovers Harper-style, top-down leadership, with no consultations outside a small inner circle. Due to the absence of internal consultation, Trudeau not only surprised Liberal Senators, but his entire caucus!  Or is this another case of poor and gratuitous judgement?

Justin opposes divisive politics – except when it suits him

While Justin Trudeau presents himself as a uniter, not a divider like Harper and Quebec Premier Pauline Marois, delegates at the Feb 2014 national convention in Montreal expressed the view that a Marois majority would help the party gain votes in BC and Ontario. In other words, the LPC hopes for a PQ majority in order to falsely represent the LPC in English Canada as the saviour of national unity. This is wedge politics that places party interests above national interests in order to target specific regional voters. This is the kind of traditional LPC trick that turns off Québécois.
No wonder only 10% of the LPC delegates at their convention in Montreal, Quebec were from Quebec.
During the orange wave in Quebec, the NDP gains were in part the result of former Bloc voters shifting over to the federalist NDP.  This is the way to unite Canadians, by presenting a progressive alternative for all parts of Canada – with the same themes/messages in every region of the country.

Trudeau and Harper: Other similarities

Finally, there are a host of other matters where we find Trudeau and Harper very much on the same page – such as Trudeau’s views that: 1) the sale of Nexen would pave the way for free trade with China and a more prosperous middle class; 2) health is primarily a management issue, rather than a financial challenge; and 3) guns are an integral part of Canadian culture.
Summing up the LPC policy positions to-date, it is clear is that Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau are on the same Bay Street/Wall Street, Big Oil team.
Why would we expect anything different from Justin in 2015?

$1.9T Global Fossil Subsidy Bill: IN DEPTH by Christopher Hopson, Recharge News, Tuesday, April 01 2014







Phasing out these hand-outs would reduce CO2 emissions significantly and enable renewables to compete on a level playing field, while the money saved could be used to subsidise the transition to clean energy or help the world deal with a warmer planet. Currently, the richest countries are spending six times more on supporting fossil fuels than on helping poorer nations adapt to climate change, according to a London think-tank, the Overseas Development Institute (ODI).
"Think about it,” says Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). “We are subsidising the very behaviour that is destroying our planet, and on an enormous scale.”
While there is a worldwide consensus that this situation has to change, virtually nothing is actually being done about it.
Almost five years ago, the G20 countries committed to “phase out and rationalise over the medium term inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies while providing targeted support for the poorest”. But as Doug Koplow, from US environment group Earth Track, tells Recharge: “The problem is that the G20 leaders seem to get a discussion going on this subject at every summit meeting, but then they just seem to do nothing.”
One major problem seems to be that no-one can agree what constitutes a fossil-fuel subsidy, let alone an “inefficient” one.
danish_sawyer.jpgNew analysis by Washington-based think-tank Worldwatch Institute shows that global subsidy estimates range from $544bn to $1.9trn a year, depending on how a subsidy is defined and calculated — whether it includes tax breaks on production, direct subsidies to consumers, or harder-to-quantify “externalities".
Many governments simply do not know how much they are spending on subsidising dirty fuels, as many forms of support have never been quantified, according to the International Institute for Sustainable Development’s Global Subsidies Initiative. Where information does exist, it is scattered across different ministries, as well as across regional and local governments, and is rarely made publicly available.
These problems are exacerbated in developing countries by poor budget transparency and limited resources for data gathering and estimating subsidies. “The resulting gaps in the data collected on fossil-fuel subsidies make it difficult, if not impossible, to assess or rationalise them,” says ODI research fellow Shelagh Whitley.
But the biggest stumbling block to ending the subsidies is undoubtedly the unwillingness of politicians to act — and that is largely due to the power and influence of Big Oil and Big Coal.
“The fossil-fuels industry is the most powerful vested interest in the history of the world,” says Steve Sawyer, secretary general of the Global Wind Energy Council. “It runs and/or owns many governments; and exerts a huge influence on many more.”
Politicians around the world rely on donations from fossil-fuel corporations. In the US, where election campaign costs can be eye-wateringly high, politicians of both main parties routinely accept thousands of dollars from these companies. In the current Congress, $8m has so far been accepted by House representatives, with 84% going to Republicans, while more than $3m has gone to Senators — 67% of which went to Republicans, according to US advocacy group Oil Change International.
subsidy_panel.jpgTo remove production subsidies, Congress would have to pass legislation to eliminate 12 preferential tax provisions related to coal, oil and gas. Efforts to remove even small portions of these subsidies have been resoundingly defeated in Congress, with lawmakers’ arguments echoing those of the lobby groups — that removal of tax breaks and other indirect subsidies would harm the economy.
“Punishing energy companies by raising taxes is not sound policy and could lead to less energy, less government revenue and fewer jobs,” says Jack Gerard, head of lobby group the American Petroleum Institute.
“The oil and gas industry in the US contributes $85m a day to the federal government — a larger contributor of government revenue than any other industry in the US.”
So although President Barack Obama has repeatedly called for an end to fossil-fuel subsidies — as he did in his State of the Union speech in January — he can’t actually get such a move through Congress.
As former US vice-president Al Gore says: “American democracy has been hacked. The US Congress... is now incapable of passing laws without permission from the corporate lobbies and other special interests that control their campaign finances.”
The fear at what might happen if subsidies are removed is palpable. Rising oil and energy prices may raise bills for voters and businesses that are already struggling. The same arguments are being used against carbon taxes.
But according to the Treasury Department, removing subsidies would reduce US oil production by less than 0.5%, and increase exploration and production costs by less than 2%. As it is the global market that determines oil prices, the impact should be negligible.
David Lipton, first deputy managing director at the IMF, says: “Subsidy reform can lead to a more efficient allocation of resources, which will help spur higher economic growth over the longer term.” Removing energy subsidies can also strengthen incentives for R&D in energy-saving and alternative technologies, he adds.
Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency (IEA), says fossil-fuel subsidies are “public enemy number one to sustainable energy development”.
“One of the main arguments put forward for keeping fossil-fuel subsidies is that they protect the poor, but studies show that 80% of such subsidies go to middle- and high-income households,” he adds. “The IEA is doing its best to persuade the G20 group of countries to act on this issue.”
Sawyer believes a “level playing field” created by removing all fossil-fuel subsidies globally would offer major advantages for renewables, as it would better reflect the true cost of energy generation. “As the price of fossil fuels rises, it would give low-cost renewables an ever-greater market advantage,” he says.
Thomas Becker, chief executive of the European Wind Energy Association, adds: “We in the wind industry can live without subsidies, as long as other energy sources don’t get subsidies as well.”
Fossil-fuel companies are quick to claim that renewables are only economically viable due to government subsidies, but the cost of green energy is dropping rapidly. According to Deutsche Bank, solar power is cheaper than grid electricity in ten major markets, including Italy and India, while wind energy is less expensive than other sources in countries such as Brazil and Australia.
Despite the political impasses, there are some chinks of light on the horizon, with important global bodies such as the UN, IMF, OECD and IEA all making increasingly strident calls for change.
The G20 leaders have asked their finance ministers to provide reports on the issue by the next G20 meeting in Brisbane, Australia, in November, and a European Commission report on the subsidies is expected in September.
subsidy-definitiion.jpgUN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon’s climate change summit, also in September, is seen as a key opportunity for world leaders to make specific pledges as to how they will replace fossil-fuel subsidies.
“Previous meetings identified a range of barriers to sustainable investment,” says Ban. “These include what we call ‘perverse subsidies’ [and] uncertainty about the predictability of electricity tariffs or government energy policies. We have to break down these barriers.”
Any deal to remove fossil-fuel subsidies would require agreement from the three biggest fossil-fuel supporters — the US, Russia and China, which rarely agree on anything.
Precise data is hard to extract from China, where producer subsidies can be found at the state, provincial and local levels. However, China is slowly trying to address its pollution problems by gradually reducing preferential tax treatment for fossil-fuel companies.
Russia, however, is offering ever more generous tax breaks to the oil and gas industry as it attempts to exploit its Arctic resources. President Vladimir Putin uses energy as a tool of international power — the threat of switching off Russia’s gas supply to Europe seems to be one of the key reasons for the EU’s feeble response to the Crimea crisis. Anything that weakens Russia’s fossil-fuel supply will weaken its power, at least in Putin’s mind.
But with the West and Russia at loggerheads over Crimea, the chances of a G20 or global deal look slimmer than ever. Some leaders have already indicated Putin might not be welcome at the Brisbane meeting. The issue may be kicked into the long grass.
“If there’s anyone around to write the history of the 21st century,” says Sawyer, “some of the key questions that will be asked are, ‘why did it take so long to address the climate change threat?’; and ‘why weren’t the deliberate misinformation campaigns from the fossil-fuels industry — about climate, renewables and economics — exposed much sooner?’.
“I believe one day they will be seen as the greatest crimes against humanity in human history. I hope I live long enough to see the trials begin; and I hope I live long enough to see politicians with the courage to take them on.”
Click here for the full list of the world's biggest fossil-fuel subsidisers

The biggest fossil-fuel subsidisers

These comprehensive figures, compiled in 2013 by the International Monetary Fund, show the amount of petroleum, natural-gas, coal and fossil-fuel-electricity subsidies in 2011, including consumption and production subsidies, as well as externalities, such as the cost of climate change ($25 per tonne of carbon), pollution, traffic congestion, accidents and road damage. All figures in US dollars.
1 United States 502,137,390,000
2 China 279,480,451,000
3 Russia 116,256,840,000
4 Saudi Arabia 99,820,324,000
5 Iran 85,420,106,000
6 India 81,494,157,000
7 Japan 46,022,197,000
8 Indonesia 45,341,690,000
9 United Arab Emirates 33,596,288,800
10 Venezuela 32,892,198,600
11 Egypt 32,403,550,500
12 Mexico 27,576,633,000
13 Australia 26,502,896,000
14 Canada 26,384,745,000
15 Algeria 26,368,445,800
16 Germany 21,575,345,000
17 Malaysia 20,750,286,000
18 Ukraine 19,297,782,400
19 Kuwait 18,981,921,000
20 Iraq 18,485,513,200
21 South Africa 17,370,080,000
22 Korea 16,726,157,500
23 Thailand 16,339,161,000
24 Uzbekistan 14,802,311,700
25 Qatar 14,636,753,000
26 Kazakhstan 12,945,962,000
27 Pakistan 12,851,909,300
28 Argentina 12,837,700,800
29 United Kingdom 10,925,897,000
30 Poland 10,789,790,100
31 Taiwan 9,852,152,200
32 Nigeria 8,724,936,300
33 Turkmenistan 8,589,734,800
34 Bangladesh 7,943,721,500
35 Oman 7,860,598,000
36 Turkey 7,541,360,000
37 Italy 7,500,386,000
38 Chile 6,873,219,600
39 Ecuador 6,697,803,800
40 Spain 6,273,184,000
41 Vietnam 6,138,846,800
42 Brazil 5,049,142,000
43 France 4,685,574,000
44 Libya 4,507,338,110
45 Netherlands 3,945,092,000
46 Bahrain 3,838,103,000
47 Czech Republic 3,526,476,500
48 Lebanon 3,299,971,400
49 Azerbaijan 3,288,028,700
50 Singapore 3,190,699,200
51 Morocco 3,181,416,500
52 Yemen 3,175,091,400
53 Angola 2,974,461,100
54 New Zealand 2,954,479,100
55 Hong Kong 2,859,305,000
56 Jordan 2,804,893,600
57 Tunisia 2,616,574,900
58 Trinidad and Tobago 2,309,683,000
59 Luxembourg 2,207,002,600
60 Belarus 1,894,817,400
61 Ghana 1,869,953,800
62 Romania 1,835,227,800
63 Austria 1,746,234,500
64 Philippines 1,658,057,800
65 Sri Lanka 1,653,371,700
66 Zimbabwe 1,609,970,900
67 Greece 1,569,709,900
68 Israel 1,569,570,800
69 Belgium 1,544,597,500
70 Sudan 1,447,790,000
71 Brunei 1,376,218,700
72 Hungary 1,353,061,800
73 Bolivia 1,343,549,800
74 Bulgaria 1,308,705,100
75 Cameroon 1,269,337,500
76 Serbia 1,224,565,300
77 Colombia 1,221,069,900
78 Ireland 1,070,636,500
79 Finland 1,053,740,100
80 Zambia 952,078,070
81 Slovakia 950,785,400
82 Sweden 942,040,500
83 Peru 881,500,400
84 Denmark 858,849,000
85 Kyrgyzstan 836,767,900
86 Ivory Coast 805,316,800
87 Congo 684,512,700
88 Mozambique 680,946,600
89 Panama 678,662,500
90 Portugal 633,802,600
91 Bosnia 631,439,400
92 Estonia 625,265,300
93 Ethiopia 615,454,200
94 Tanzania 589,420,400
95 Myanmar 498,641,000
96 Guatemala 496,030,900
97 Norway 493,704,700
98 Switzerland 452,377,300
99 Slovenia 422,515,400
100 Mongolia 397,038,300
101 Senegal 386,981,200
102 Equatorial Guinea 367,405,500
103 Croatia 341,815,700
104 Botswana 303,626,800
105 DR Congo 296,467,600
106 Uganda 251,844,400
107 Kenya 231,219,900
108 Armenia 214,977,400
109 Lithuania 210,848,600
110 Tajikistan 193,813,800
111 Georgia 177,430,700
112 El Salvador 171,389,700
113 Benin 158,751,500
114 Dominican Republic 153,095,600
115 Latvia 146,415,600
116 Macedonia 145,601,000
117 Cyprus 144,822,200
118 Madagascar 138,045,600
119 Costa Rica 132,507,000
120 Gabon 127,525,500
121 Burkina Faso 124,585,500
122 Mali 120,806,900
123 Malawi 119,951,200
124 Moldova 116,710,100
125 Bahamas 109,164,000
126 Mauritania 103,023,500
127 Namibia 78,253,200
128 Honduras 75,230,600
129 Jamaica 65,179,200
130 Nepal 50,277,800
131 Cape Verde 48,869,300
132 Afghanistan 42,234,300
133 Maldives 29,763,200
134 Togo 26,452,600
135 Guyana 25,829,500
136 Rwanda 24,451,900
137 Lesotho 24,122,600
138 Niger 21,850,900
139 Bhutan 18,291,600
140 Barbados 18,109,200
141 Antigua and Barbuda 17,624,400
142 Iceland 15,498,800
143 Sierra Leone 13,152,000
144 St Lucia 10,112,900
145 St Kitts and Nevis 8,541,600
146 Grenada 7,885,000
147 Djibouti 7,206,800
148 Malta 6,470,300
149 Uruguay 6,375,700
150 St Vincent and
the Grenadines 5,715,400
151 Dominica 5,461,500
152 Fiji 5,048,800
153 Albania 2,991,400
154 Chad 1,772,600
155 São Tomé and Príncipe 1,467,100
156 Kosovo 1,166,300
157 Nicaragua 492,500
158 East Timor 287,400
159 Cambodia 179,100
160 Montenegro 78,900 

Total 1,894,826,364,880