Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

[Josquius]

The solution to your bath water being boiling hot isn't to turn it into a block of ice :p

The solution lies in the middle. Not even so far as everyone moving to decent sized cities.
Small towns these days tend to be pretty horribly planned. Very scattered and stretching over a much bigger area than they need to. Look back at maps from pre-war and its amazing how cities and towns of pretty similar population levels to today fit into a significantly smaller area, then post war with the explosion in car ownership...things just become a mess with housing estates popping up willy nilly all over the place.
Housing should be built with public transport considered a central priority in where to place it and the laying of railway lines massively re-prioritised to victorian levels. New road building should be a massively complex and for extreme situations only affair.

And I know what real rural areas look like. I've been all over in Japan. Nobody thinks cars should be banned all over the world and some guy living 50km from his closest neighbour in the Yukon be forced to take the non-existant bus. This is a all too common strawman tapping into the Nirvana fallacy.
However over half of the world's population does live in urban areas and this is growing. By organising these better we can make huge gains even if it'll never work for everyone.

[Berkut]

Jacob, but to answer the question that I said I had no answer to because that is accurate as I'm an accountant with a biology degree that rock climbs on weekends and has no climate expertise (I can't resist throwing in bullshit two cents whereever I can):

-The excess greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activity are generally a stock not a flow. The current problem is the result of a couple centuries of industrialization and even cutting global emissions to absolute zero for all time doesn't remove what we've already put in the atmosphere, and there are even models showing that there is a positive feedback loop that could cause additional greenhouse gas to be naturally released based on elevated global temperatures. The current crisis is what is already in the atmosphere, and of course we are adding greenhouse gases at increasing rates on a global basis. So it seems the ultimate solution is going to need to be a way to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

-It is more complicated and involves lots of economics, but I generally think if you want to reduce emissions the best way is a full court press on production rather than consumption. The reason being that production is easily monitored and stationary. If you don't allow the offshore oil rig to operate the oil field under it will never be exploited. Consumption is very easy to move. The reason greenhouse gases are an issue is that fossil fuels are cheaper than other sources in many circumstances, and that means even if one country doesn't import that fuel another is interested in doing so.

I pretty much agree with AR here almost completely.

I think efforts targeted at consumption are at best a waste of effort*, and at worst a way to make people think something is being done so that the real problem can be effectively ignored.

*-actually, they are not all a waste of effort, just most or many of them. I think we should be moving away from ICE for example, but that should be attacked at both ends - more and better non-ICE vehicles, and cutting back on the production of fossil fuels, which will in turn making the consumer end more attractive as well.

[Berkut]

And I know what real rural areas look like. I've been all over in Japan. Nobody thinks cars should be banned all over the world and some guy living 50km from his closest neighbour in the Yukon be forced to take the non-existant bus. This is a all too common strawman tapping into the Nirvana fallacy.
However over half of the world's population does live in urban areas and this is growing. By organising these better we can make huge gains even if it'll never work for everyone.

Indeed.

We need to stop trying to come up with "perfect" solutions, and rather just start implementing better policies. Be politically flexible, and willing to try stuff and then throw it out if the inevitably unforeseen consequences are not what we expect or want, and try something else.

[Barrister]

Jacob, but to answer the question that I said I had no answer to because that is accurate as I'm an accountant with a biology degree that rock climbs on weekends and has no climate expertise (I can't resist throwing in bullshit two cents whereever I can):

-The excess greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activity are generally a stock not a flow. The current problem is the result of a couple centuries of industrialization and even cutting global emissions to absolute zero for all time doesn't remove what we've already put in the atmosphere, and there are even models showing that there is a positive feedback loop that could cause additional greenhouse gas to be naturally released based on elevated global temperatures. The current crisis is what is already in the atmosphere, and of course we are adding greenhouse gases at increasing rates on a global basis. So it seems the ultimate solution is going to need to be a way to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

-It is more complicated and involves lots of economics, but I generally think if you want to reduce emissions the best way is a full court press on production rather than consumption. The reason being that production is easily monitored and stationary. If you don't allow the offshore oil rig to operate the oil field under it will never be exploited. Consumption is very easy to move. The reason greenhouse gases are an issue is that fossil fuels are cheaper than other sources in many circumstances, and that means even if one country doesn't import that fuel another is interested in doing so.

I pretty much agree with AR here almost completely.

I think efforts targeted at consumption are at best a waste of effort*, and at worst a way to make people think something is being done so that the real problem can be effectively ignored.

*-actually, they are not all a waste of effort, just most or many of them. I think we should be moving away from ICE for example, but that should be attacked at both ends - more and better non-ICE vehicles, and cutting back on the production of fossil fuels, which will in turn making the consumer end more attractive as well.

I disagree.  I started writing a response to AR, decided against it, but I'll try again.

The reason why going after supply is doomed to fail is because hydrocarbons are a fungible commodity.  Your car doesn't care if the gas it burns came from the US, Canada, Saudi Arabia or Iran.
If you completely shut down the production of hydrocarbons in the US all it would accomplish would be a massive transfer of wealth from the US/West to other countries that continue to produce unabated.

But can't you just get all the oil producing countries of the world to agree to cut back at the same time and by the same amount?  Well it's been tried before - by OPEC.  And the problem for OPEC has always been that the financial incentive to cheat and produce more than you are allowed is so strong that they've never had good compliance with their production quotas.

That's why you have to go after the demand side.  Whether it be by carbon taxes, banning ICE vehicles, mandating solar panels or whatever policies you implement - force a reduction in the demand for hydrocarbons, and the supply will follow.

[Jacob]

Jacob, but to answer the question that I said I had no answer to because that is accurate as I'm an accountant with a biology degree that rock climbs on weekends and has no climate expertise (I can't resist throwing in bullshit two cents whereever I can):

-The excess greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activity are generally a stock not a flow. The current problem is the result of a couple centuries of industrialization and even cutting global emissions to absolute zero for all time doesn't remove what we've already put in the atmosphere, and there are even models showing that there is a positive feedback loop that could cause additional greenhouse gas to be naturally released based on elevated global temperatures. The current crisis is what is already in the atmosphere, and of course we are adding greenhouse gases at increasing rates on a global basis. So it seems the ultimate solution is going to need to be a way to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

-It is more complicated and involves lots of economics, but I generally think if you want to reduce emissions the best way is a full court press on production rather than consumption. The reason being that production is easily monitored and stationary. If you don't allow the offshore oil rig to operate the oil field under it will never be exploited. Consumption is very easy to move. The reason greenhouse gases are an issue is that fossil fuels are cheaper than other sources in many circumstances, and that means even if one country doesn't import that fuel another is interested in doing so.

That's pretty reasonable, thank you for that.

I guess the next question becomes how to affect the necessary political change to implement appropriate policies.

[Berkut]

Jacob, but to answer the question that I said I had no answer to because that is accurate as I'm an accountant with a biology degree that rock climbs on weekends and has no climate expertise (I can't resist throwing in bullshit two cents whereever I can):

-The excess greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activity are generally a stock not a flow. The current problem is the result of a couple centuries of industrialization and even cutting global emissions to absolute zero for all time doesn't remove what we've already put in the atmosphere, and there are even models showing that there is a positive feedback loop that could cause additional greenhouse gas to be naturally released based on elevated global temperatures. The current crisis is what is already in the atmosphere, and of course we are adding greenhouse gases at increasing rates on a global basis. So it seems the ultimate solution is going to need to be a way to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

-It is more complicated and involves lots of economics, but I generally think if you want to reduce emissions the best way is a full court press on production rather than consumption. The reason being that production is easily monitored and stationary. If you don't allow the offshore oil rig to operate the oil field under it will never be exploited. Consumption is very easy to move. The reason greenhouse gases are an issue is that fossil fuels are cheaper than other sources in many circumstances, and that means even if one country doesn't import that fuel another is interested in doing so.

I pretty much agree with AR here almost completely.

I think efforts targeted at consumption are at best a waste of effort*, and at worst a way to make people think something is being done so that the real problem can be effectively ignored.

*-actually, they are not all a waste of effort, just most or many of them. I think we should be moving away from ICE for example, but that should be attacked at both ends - more and better non-ICE vehicles, and cutting back on the production of fossil fuels, which will in turn making the consumer end more attractive as well.

I disagree.  I started writing a response to AR, decided against it, but I'll try again.

The reason why going after supply is doomed to fail is because hydrocarbons are a fungible commodity.  Your car doesn't care if the gas it burns came from the US, Canada, Saudi Arabia or Iran.
If you completely shut down the production of hydrocarbons in the US all it would accomplish would be a massive transfer of wealth from the US/West to other countries that continue to produce unabated.

But can't you just get all the oil producing countries of the world to agree to cut back at the same time and by the same amount?  Well it's been tried before - by OPEC.  And the problem for OPEC has always been that the financial incentive to cheat and produce more than you are allowed is so strong that they've never had good compliance with their production quotas.

That's why you have to go after the demand side.  Whether it be by carbon taxes, banning ICE vehicles, mandating solar panels or whatever policies you implement - force a reduction in the demand for hydrocarbons, and the supply will follow.

I disagree. I mean, of course the answer is actually both.

But the reality is that fossil fuels are just too damn efficient to ever hope that the insatiable demand for energy by consumers will be somehow suppressed.

Carbon taxes are a supply side effort, btw - not consumer. Unless you consider gas taxes a carbon tax already?

I am no advocating for shutting down production at all, btw. That simply won't work. I am advocating for aggressively changing the incentives around fossil fuel production.

And I think history has show that this can work, and that your idea simply does not. We aren't reducing coal use by talking consumers into not using coal furnaces anymore, we are doing it by making the producers of coal driven energy absorb the external costs of doing so.

The reality is that the REAL cost of fossil fuel energy production ought to be incredible high since it does incredible damage to our environment. Even possibly existential damage. The way to cut it down, WAY DOWN, is to make sure those costs are actually paid throughout the production stream.

[Barrister]

I disagree. I mean, of course the answer is actually both.

But the reality is that fossil fuels are just too damn efficient to ever hope that the insatiable demand for energy by consumers will be somehow suppressed.

Carbon taxes are a supply side effort, btw - not consumer. Unless you consider gas taxes a carbon tax already?

I am no advocating for shutting down production at all, btw. That simply won't work. I am advocating for aggressively changing the incentives around fossil fuel production.

And I think history has show that this can work, and that your idea simply does not. We aren't reducing coal use by talking consumers into not using coal furnaces anymore, we are doing it by making the producers of coal driven energy absorb the external costs of doing so.

The reality is that the REAL cost of fossil fuel energy production ought to be incredible high since it does incredible damage to our environment. Even possibly existential damage. The way to cut it down, WAY DOWN, is to make sure those costs are actually paid throughout the production stream.

Carbon taxes are a demand-side tax - hydrocarbons are taxed by the end user, not the producer.

Coal is not a real good example.  The reason nobody uses coal to heat their home is that coal is a really dirty and inefficient way of heating your home.  People switched to natural gas because it is much cleaner and more efficient.

And what about my principle argument - that hydrocarbon production will just shift to overseas if we aggressively penalize domestic production?

[Berkut]

I disagree. I mean, of course the answer is actually both.

But the reality is that fossil fuels are just too damn efficient to ever hope that the insatiable demand for energy by consumers will be somehow suppressed.

Carbon taxes are a supply side effort, btw - not consumer. Unless you consider gas taxes a carbon tax already?

I am no advocating for shutting down production at all, btw. That simply won't work. I am advocating for aggressively changing the incentives around fossil fuel production.

And I think history has show that this can work, and that your idea simply does not. We aren't reducing coal use by talking consumers into not using coal furnaces anymore, we are doing it by making the producers of coal driven energy absorb the external costs of doing so.

The reality is that the REAL cost of fossil fuel energy production ought to be incredible high since it does incredible damage to our environment. Even possibly existential damage. The way to cut it down, WAY DOWN, is to make sure those costs are actually paid throughout the production stream.

Carbon taxes are a demand-side tax - hydrocarbons are taxed by the end user, not the producer.

Coal is not a real good example.  The reason nobody uses coal to heat their home is that coal is a really dirty and inefficient way of heating your home.  People switched to natural gas because it is much cleaner and more efficient.

And what about my principle argument - that hydrocarbon production will just shift to overseas if we aggressively penalize domestic production?

My argument has very little to do with domestic versus non-domestic production.

I consider carbon taxes to be supply side - they are taxing the consumption of carbon based fuels to create energy. They are not attempting to reduce demand for energy, just make it more expensive to produce energy using fossil fuels.

And coal is an excellent example, in fact. We have reduced the consumption of coal by the consumers of coal - power stations that produce energy.

[Barrister]

My argument has very little to do with domestic versus non-domestic production.

I consider carbon taxes to be supply side - they are taxing the consumption of carbon based fuels to create energy. They are not attempting to reduce demand for energy, just make it more expensive to produce energy using fossil fuels.

And coal is an excellent example, in fact. We have reduced the consumption of coal by the consumers of coal - power stations that produce energy.

I'm pretty sure that making something more expensive moves it down the demand curve, but whatever.  As long as we agree that carbon taxes are good, and just randomly shutting down domestic oil wells by fiat is bad, then we're in complete agreement and you can call it whatever you like.

[Sheilbh]

Although that example just highlights the problem of this issue because globally we haven't reduced consumption of coal by power plants or industry such as steel. Use of coal has only ever increased since 1950 and its rate of increase has slowed dramatically and we may turn a corner to falling consumption (through closing power plants etc) out paces new growth. But we're not there yet.

Edit: And another issue is BBoy in the other thread talking about $3.5 trillion as a crazy amount of money - because it is a fraction of the costs we'll need to incur for energy transition.

[Berkut]

Although that example just highlights the problem of this issue because globally we haven't reduced consumption of coal by power plants or industry such as steel. Use of coal has only ever increased since 1950 and its rate of increase has slowed dramatically and we may turn a corner to falling consumption (through closing power plants etc) out paces new growth. But we're not there yet.

But what else are we going to do?

Progress is better then no progress. There will always be some excuse or reason to not do something.

Global use has not reduced. THat is better then it increasing. The observation you are making is the argument that people make when they want (and did want) to not address domestic use of coal in power plants, or even resisted legislation to not restrict its production, but to just demand scrubbers and better production with less waste and pollution. "If you make US coal plants cleaner, it won't stop the Chinese from making their plants continue to be dirty and we won't be able to compete in widget production!!!!"

Bullshit. We cannot fix everything all at once. We have to just make it better where we can, and as aggressively as we can, and personally I am not going to give much of any weight to arguments of the form of "If WE stop doing something fucking terrible, some other people somewhere else might just do it instead!" If that is the case, then we can deal with THAT problem when it happens.

[Barrister]

Although that example just highlights the problem of this issue because globally we haven't reduced consumption of coal by power plants or industry such as steel. Use of coal has only ever increased since 1950 and its rate of increase has slowed dramatically and we may turn a corner to falling consumption (through closing power plants etc) out paces new growth. But we're not there yet.

Edit: And another issue is BBoy in the other thread talking about $3.5 trillion as a crazy amount of money - because it is a fraction of the costs we'll need to incur for energy transition.

The $3.5 trillion "human infrastructure" only addresses climate change as one of many different priorities.  It also includes a child tax credit, paid family and medical leave, universal preschool, free community college, health insurance subsidies, and so on.

A lot of the costs of the energy transition are not going to come directly from the government.  You're not going to have a new electric car because the government buys you a new car, for example.  With the right pushes and pulls the economy will transition itself because it makes more economic sense to do so.  Not that the government won't be spending a lot of money in those pushes and pulls of course.

[Sheilbh]

But what else are we going to do?

Sure I think it's a caution that ultimately the age when the West could devise a solution to this is over - we are a sideshow compared to China and so is the extent that we need de-carbonise our economy. So any solution is going to at least significantly involve if not be led by China. And this is a huge issue for China too - they're a resource poor country without much extra farmland who are very exposed to climate change which I think does at least partly explain Xi's commitments in this area.

That's not an argument that we shouldn't do anything but that we can't assume great victories at home reducing reliance on fossil fuels is significant.

I also think we need to re-frame our understanding to the global. Reducing the number of coal-fired plants in the US is easy relatively, we also need to look at the global picture. For example, there's a massive coal plant being built in Kenya - and US and Western banks and suppliers are very heavily involved in funding that. So I think we need to look at how we reduce and then stop funding new coal power plants around the world (while shutting them at home) and also offer an alternative in terms of cheap reliable energy because Kenya (as an example) is still going to need that.

A lot of the costs of the energy transition are not going to come directly from the government.  You're not going to have a new electric car because the government buys you a new car, for example.  With the right pushes and pulls the economy will transition itself because it makes more economic sense to do so.  Not that the government won't be spending a lot of money in those pushes and pulls of course.

I think that underestimates the amount of infrastructure we need to build and the state of technology now. The private sector is important but in a lot of areas - investment in developing carbon-free coal, battery tech and infrastructure, cleaner transport infrastructure - they'll rely on the state spending or need to be basically de-risked (as they were for vaccine research).

[viper37]

Carbon taxes are a supply side effort, btw - not consumer. Unless you consider gas taxes a carbon tax already?

it's both.  The demand is inelastic.  People using an oil furnace won't change it until it cost a lot more than now in fuel.  They went for gaz or heating oil because it costs less than electricity, because it can provide permanent heating compared to wood (no need to stuff the furnace every 4-8hrs) or simply because there is no other choice where they are. 

Either way, it's mostly a consumer tax.  It's a 100% consumer tax when it comes to heating choice.  Sure, you can replace your furnace for something else, like electricity.  At hight costs for the change, especially if your house relies only on central heating and has no eletric heating in individual rooms (it would be mostly the case for appartment buildings and commercial environment).  Then, you have to devote an higher part of your budget to heating cost because electricity will cost you more.

Natural gaz isn't available everywhere.  In fact, it seems to be mostly nowhere outside of large cities, no pipelines and links to your house, no deliveries by truck either.

When it comes to transportation, there's a lack of alternatives, currently, for many vehicle types, but I admit it is changing rapidly.  Still, right now, there's no plans to replace pick-up size diesel engines with electric ones, or with any kind of hydrogen (or other technology) batteries.  So any one in need of large pick-up trucks, like say, the construction industry, the forest industry, farmers, etc, there is no alternatives.  There is no alternatives for fishermen either.  So they will raise their prices, because fuel will cost more and they have no alternative to change to.  In the end, it's the consumer paying the carbon tax.  Looking at GM&Ford trucks, there's been a 0,001% improvement in fuel consumption for their diesel engines over the last decade.  This combustion technology is perfectly mature and the only way companies can improve consumption, even for fuel engines, is with gimmicks, like stopping the engine when  you press the brakes, or shutting down cylinders (for fuel engines, doesn't work on diesel) when you drive on the highway with no load.  And the real life advantages of that are pretty limited.  Sure, it's nice to have.  It does same some fuel.  Not enough to justify a replacement of the vehicle only for that, though.

As for cars, currently, electric or hybrid cars lack in diversity and even accounting for the goverrnmental aid (where available), they are still priced much higher than a comparative fuel engined vehicle.  Here, it's about 30% consumer, 70% manufacturer.  If a manufacturer isn't already investing in the r&d of future hybrid/electric engines, it has totally missed the boat, and consumers will leave that brand behind as they switch for another one.  It's not there yet, but it's coming very soon.  And there are companies working on hydrogen vehicles, also, with promising leads.  We'll have to see if there's a way to recharge/recycle these batteries in a near future.

Transportation wise, I believe some manufacturers are working on the replacement of large diesel engines (vans and 10/12-wheelers) with electric ones, so that's a good news.  On the slightly worst news, there's no plans to have any kind of non-co2 releasing aircraft anytime soon.  I don't think the technology exists yet to make a plane fly from New York to Paris with something else than the fuels we use now. Well, I think there's a mix of bio-fuel (recycled cooking oil) that can be used, but it's of limited effect and requires significant investment for the aircraft, so not totally practical as of yet.  And no plans for the immediate future to change this as I know of (I could be wrong).

As far as shipping goes, I have seem some projects using sails to reduce diesel fuel consumption by combining them with a regular engine.  It's promising, but there does not seem to be a generalized plan by shipping companies worldwide to switch to this technology.  The costs will again be shifted 100% to consumers.  Ok, maybe 99.1% of it.

When it comes to recreative drive, be it sports&fishing boats, or recreative vehicles, it's again a 100% consumer tax. There is simply no alternative for the consumer, aside not practicing these activites.

So there we have it.  It's simply false to describe a carbon tax as being strictly a tax on the supply side.  It's a tax on the consumer side, and for many, there is simply no alternatives.

I don't disagree that we need it, but we'll have to think of a way to help the population cope with the increase in costs of living.

[Syt]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/06/fossil-fuel-industry-subsidies-of-11m-dollars-a-minute-imf-finds

Fossil fuel industry gets subsidies of $11m a minute, IMF finds

Trillions of dollars a year are 'adding fuel to the fire' of the climate crisis, experts say

The fossil fuel industry benefits from subsidies of $11m every minute, according to analysis by the International Monetary Fund.

The IMF found the production and burning of coal, oil and gas was subsidised by $5.9tn in 2020, with not a single country pricing all its fuels sufficiently to reflect their full supply and environmental costs. Experts said the subsidies were "adding fuel to the fire" of the climate crisis, at a time when rapid reductions in carbon emissions were urgently needed.

Explicit subsidies that cut fuel prices accounted for 8% of the total and tax breaks another 6%. The biggest factors were failing to make polluters pay for the deaths and poor health caused by air pollution (42%) and for the heatwaves and other impacts of global heating (29%).

Setting fossil fuel prices that reflect their true cost would cut global CO2 emissions by over a third, the IMF analysts said. This would be a big step towards meeting the internationally agreed 1.5C target. Keeping this target within reach is a key goal of the UN Cop26 climate summit in November.

Agreeing rules for carbon markets, which enable the proper pricing of pollution, is another Cop26 goal. "Fossil fuel price reform could not be timelier," the IMF researchers said. The ending of fossil fuel subsidies would also prevent nearly a million deaths a year from dirty air and raise trillions of dollars for governments, they said.

"There would be enormous benefits from reform, so there's an enormous amount at stake," said Ian Parry, the lead author of the IMF report. "Some countries are reluctant to raise energy prices because they think it will harm the poor. But holding down fossil fuel prices is a highly inefficient way to help the poor, because most of the benefits accrue to wealthier households. It would be better to target resources towards helping poor and vulnerable people directly."

With 50 countries committed to net zero emissions by mid-century and more than 60 carbon pricing schemes around the world, there are some encouraging signs, Parry said: "But we're still just scratching the surface really, and there's an awful long way to go."

The G20 agreed in 2009 to phase out "inefficient" fossil fuel subsidies and in 2016, the G7 set a deadline of 2025, but little progress has been made. In July, a report showed that the G20 countries had subsidised fossil fuels by trillions of dollars since 2015, the year the Paris climate deal was reached.

"To stabilise global temperatures we must urgently move away from fossil fuels instead of adding fuel to the fire," said Mike Coffin, senior analyst at the thinktank Carbon Tracker. "It's critical that governments stop propping up an industry that is in decline, and look to accelerate the low-carbon energy transition, and our future, instead.

"As host of Cop26, the UK government could play an important global leadership role by ending all subsidies for fossil fuels, as well as halting new North Sea licensing rounds," he said. The International Energy Agency (IEA) said in May that the development of new oil and gas fields must stop this year to meet climate goals.

The comprehensive IMF report found that prices were at least 50% below their true costs for 99% of coal, 52% of diesel and 47% of natural gas in 2020. Five countries were responsible for two-thirds of the subsidies: China, the US, Russia, India and Japan. Without action, subsidies will rise to $6.4tn in 2025, the IMF said.

Proper pricing for fossil fuels would cut emissions by, for example, encouraging electricity generators to switch from coal to renewable energy and making electric cars an even cheaper option for motorists. International cooperation is important, Parry said, to allay fears that countries could lose competitiveness if their fossil fuel prices were higher.

"The IMF report is a sobering reading, pointing to one of the major defects of the global economy," said Maria Pastukhova, at the thinktank e3g. "The IEA's net-zero roadmap projects that $5tn is necessary by 2030 to put the world on the pathway to a climate-safe world. It is maddening to realise the much-needed change could start happening now, if not for governments' entanglement with the fossil fuels industry in so many major economies."

"Fossil fuel subsidies have been a major stumbling block in the G20 process for years," she said. "Now all eyes are on the G20 leaders' summit in late October."

Ipek Gençsü, at the Overseas Development Institute, said: "[Subsidy reform] requires support for vulnerable consumers who will be impacted by rising costs, as well for workers in industries which simply have to shut down. It also requires information campaigns, showing how the savings will be redistributed to society in the form of healthcare, education and other social services. Many people oppose subsidy reform because they see it solely as governments taking something away, and not giving back."

The G20 countries emit almost 80% of global greenhouse gases. More than 600 global companies in the We Mean Business coalition, including Unilever, Ikea, Aviva, Siemens and Volvo Cars, recently urged G20 leaders to end fossil fuel subsidies by 2025.