iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Fossil Fuel Subsidies Targeted In Climate Financing Paper By IMF, World Bank, Other Groups

By ARTHUR MAX   09/21/11 09:33 AM ET   AP

AMSTERDAM -- Global financial institutions are recommending raising money to fight climate change by trimming subsidies for fossil fuels, putting a price tag of $25 per ton on carbon emissions and collecting a surcharge on aviation and shipping fuels.

The recommendations are part of a draft paper by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other international groups prepared for a meeting Friday in Washington of G20 finance and development ministers. It was leaked prematurely and distributed Wednesday by aid agencies.

The ministers of the world's 20 largest economies are responding to a commitment to channel $100 billion a year by 2020 to help developing countries adapt to global warming and develop low-carbon economies.

A separate paper by Microsoft founder Bill Gates will be given to the ministers. It is focused on financing development aid, and promotes the idea of a tax on international financial transactions.

The draft plan on climate finance, which could be adopted at the G20 summit in the French city of Cannes in November, refines proposals last year by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's advisers on how to meet the $100 billion target. The pledge would form part of a new global accord on climate change.

The summit of the G20 countries, which account for 85 percent of the world's economy and two-thirds of its population, will set the stage for a resumption of negotiations on a climate pact by more than 190 countries beginning Nov. 28 in Durban, South Africa.

"It's a big deal. You have to get a breakthrough at the G20 to get anything through" in a final climate deal, said Tim Gore, of the nonprofit Oxfam.

The draft paper says the starting point should be a review of fossil fuel subsidies, amounting to $40 billion to $60 billion a year. But many of those subsidies are handed out in poor countries, where people living on the edge of subsistence need help, for example, to buy cooking gas. Still, subsidy reforms in industrialized countries and emerging economies could contribute $10 billion a year to a climate fund, it said.

Bigger sums could be raised by charging $25 per ton on so-called bunker fuels, the carbon-heavy oil used for aviation and shipping.

A bunker fuel charge could raise $40 billion a year by 2020. Part of that would be earmarked to compensate poor countries for higher import costs, but about $25 billion could go toward climate change, it said. It also would lead to a reduction of 5 to 10 percent of the greenhouse gases emitted by aircraft and the merchant marine, it said.

A charge on all carbon emissions, whether through a tax or a cap-and-trade program as exists in Europe, also would lead to a 10 percent emissions reduction and raise at least $230 billion, it said. Most of that revenue would be used to reduce other taxes or compensate poor families, but allocating just 10 percent to the climate fund would meet nearly one-fourth of the goal, it said.

Private investments, based on competition and profit, are essential to the plan, the paper said. Investors will seek out the most cost-effective ways of fighting climate change, and investments are especially necessary when governments are grappling with a financial crisis.

Last year investment in renewable energy, energy efficiency, electric cars and other forms of green energy totaled $500 billion, including more than $200 billion in developing countries, the paper said. Private capital can benefit from public finance through concessional loans or grants.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

AMSTERDAM -- Global financial institutions are recommending raising money to fight climate change by trimming subsidies for fossil fuels, putting a price tag of $25 per ton on carbon emissions and col...
AMSTERDAM -- Global financial institutions are recommending raising money to fight climate change by trimming subsidies for fossil fuels, putting a price tag of $25 per ton on carbon emissions and col...
AMSTERDAM -- Global financial institutions are recommending raising money to fight climate change by trimming subsidies for fossil fuels, putting a price tag of $25 per ton on carbon emissions and col...
AMSTERDAM -- Global financial institutions are recommending raising money to fight climate change by trimming subsidies for fossil fuels, putting a price tag of $25 per ton on carbon emissions and col...
Filed by Joanna Zelman  |  Report Corrections
 
 
  • Comments
  • 164
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cayce58
05:09 AM on 10/10/2011
There is a problem with your "the science is not settled" attitude and that is the scientists. Every science has its chicken littles. Almost always they are the young and inexpenienced and their theories get disproven quickly. In climate science, the oldest, most respected names are the ones who are most afraid. You more you learn, the scarier it gets. Read "6 Degrees."
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cayce58
04:58 AM on 10/10/2011
Fredsmith........."The debate is over. Its happening and its our fault." Scientific America magazine --2006
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MikeWebster
Always happy.
03:53 AM on 09/27/2011
Let's hope world leaders all realise the urgency of acting now, with every possible policy lever at their disposal.

This has gone on too long, and the failure to act has committed us to a lot more warming already.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Fred Smith3865
08:04 PM on 09/26/2011
QuManmade global warming is a myth propagated on us by governments and others who seek to control our activity and freedom by creating a bogeyman. The US wastes 5 billion dollars a year in fruitless research trying to prove this myth. Why spend all this money unless the science is more than "unsettled"?
Note 1: The AP said: "Carbon dioxide, the gas largely blamed for global warming, has reached record-high levels in the atmosphere after growing at an accelerated pace in the past year..."

Facts: Carbon dioxide is not the major greenhouse gas (water vapor is).2

Carbon dioxide accounts for less than ten percent of the greenhouse effect, as carbon dioxide's ability to absorb heat is quite limited.3

Only about 0.03 percent of the Earth's atmosphere consists of carbon dioxide (nitrogen, oxygen, and argon constitute about 78 percent, 20 percent, and 0.93 percent of the atmosphere, respectively).4

The sun, not a gas, is primarily to "blame" for global warming -- and plays a very key role in global temperature variations as well.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MikeWebster
Always happy.
04:00 AM on 09/27/2011
No, the science is settled, and we know that the Earth is warming due to AGW. Of course as soon as this is known, it becomes imperative for Government, and others to study it as closely as possible, to be able to predict the changes that will occur, plan for the future, and foresee disasters.

Carbon Dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere, and is responsible for the majority of the warming we are seeing. As we see temperatures rise, there is increased water vapour in the air, so that becomes more important. Indeed methane and various other gases are more powerful GHG's than CO2. CO2 has risen about 33% in atmospheric concentrations over the last 100 years, which if you are correct that it is 10% of the greenhouse effect generally, means that another 3% heating would be happening from greenhouse gases in total just due to rises in CO2.

The sun has no relationship to the current warming we are seeing, because the sun has not been continually getting hotter over the last 50 years or so.

Your facts seem to be carefully tailored from the usual denier talking points. Every one of them is misleading in the way it is stated. Your conclusions of course are totally incorrect.
10:58 PM on 09/22/2011
We shouldn't allow any papers by the Fossil Fuel industries. After all, the science is settled.

No need to continue ANY scientific endeavor at all. The science is settled.

It is just like the fact that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. The science is settled. No need to do anything to disprove that.

Oooooooooppppppsssss.... Maybe stuff can travel faster than the speed of light: http://news.yahoo.com/cern-claims-faster-light-particle-measured-180644818.html

Oh well, I guess science is NEVER really settled now is it.....
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
10:57 PM on 09/23/2011
"We shouldn't allow any papers by the Fossil Fuel industries­."

They're allowed to pay for all the papers they like, but they'll have to be correct to be published in academic journals.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Proud member of the reality-based community!
12:05 AM on 09/24/2011
Do you really think the fossil fuel industries are interested in good science?  Did the fossil fuel industry discover things move faster than light?
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
08:45 PM on 09/22/2011
The US has paid a huge subsidy to big oil in the form of military blood spilled porotecting it.
The amount of Iraqi blood spilled so that we can sit over their oil fields dwarfs that.
It doesn't pay to be addicted to an energy source held by hostile nations.
And there isn't a lot positive to say about a bunch of intellectual sheep who burden future generations with an atmosphere fouled by hundreds of billions of tons of heat trapping fossil fuel pollution.
05:20 PM on 09/21/2011
another ponzi scheme
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RickW44
06:11 PM on 09/21/2011
Don't think so. Look up the definition of ponzi scheme woman and then get back to us.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MikeWebster
Always happy.
04:05 AM on 09/27/2011
That's asking a bit much, don't you think?
03:07 PM on 09/21/2011
Another scheme by the UN and IMF to steal from "rich" countries to "fund" poor countries...AFTER A HEALTHY CUT TO FUND UN DIGNITARIES IN THE STYLE THEY HAVE BECOME ACUSTOMED TO!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:38 PM on 09/21/2011
income redistribution. It has worked so well in the past. Ask StalinandMao.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:43 PM on 09/21/2011
"income redistribu­tion. It has worked so well in the past. Ask StalinandM­ao"

It sounds to me as if the income which is being redistributed in this case is taxpayers money being redistributed to the vastly wealthy oil companies.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Proud member of the reality-based community!
12:06 AM on 09/24/2011
Yes, the rich are glad they dupes like you are protecting their assets.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
08:01 PM on 09/22/2011
Except the IMF and the World Bank do EXACTLY the opposite, if you would only to a little research.
No-name-plz
He meant spatula ready.
01:05 PM on 09/21/2011
Before any more money goes into the IMF, they should be compelled to make thier books available. This group is unaccountable for the $100's of billions is has spent. Noboy knows what or where they spend money on and they aren't talking.
04:45 PM on 09/21/2011
We are not suppose to ask questions, just trust and believe that they know what is good for us. (SARC)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MikeWebster
Always happy.
04:11 AM on 09/27/2011
How do you know that nobody knows - have you looked it up. I would have thought they'd have accounts like any other group.
photo
MA
progressive not obsessive
12:55 PM on 09/21/2011
Why not put a 90% tax on oil speculator profits? 65 to 70 cents per gallon of gasoline cost is due to them.
photo
Ragnar Danneskjold
Defender of Liberty
12:43 PM on 09/21/2011
Yep. extortion. Let's steal money from the poor and middle class who need fossil fuels and fund the imaginary global warming catastrophe's and the very real Solyndras of the world. FAIL.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MikeWebster
Always happy.
04:12 AM on 09/27/2011
Imaginary global warming catastrophe??

BTW: what do you think the subsidies are. They are pretty much stealing from the poor and middle class, and handing big checks to the oil companies - who should be profitable by now - it's been 100 years after all.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Malcolm Hensley
Last of the Reagan Republicans
12:27 PM on 09/21/2011
$25.00/ton and a gallon of gasoline makes about 19 pounds of CO2 - that comes out to - what - $0.24/gallon added cost?

Something to consider.
photo
robear6987
oops ! did i offend you , my bad .
04:13 PM on 09/21/2011
only a commie and a thief would consider this tax.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RickW44
05:58 PM on 09/21/2011
Spoken from a man who probably shops at Commie-Mart and cheats on his taxes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Malcolm Hensley
Last of the Reagan Republicans
07:04 PM on 09/21/2011
actually I thought I was being helpful since many don't realize how much CO2 is formed burning gasoline and what the actual added cost would be!

Even that most likely would be understated because they would add that tax up front so they could add extra federal and state taxes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
niumarmion
a temporary being
12:20 PM on 09/21/2011
What about the subsidies the carbon companies get when the U.S. Military siezes and secures natural resources for them? What about the health costs from pollution the carbon companies do not have to pay? Are the carbon companies going to pay the costs of the people who lost their livelihood in the gulf?
12:05 PM on 09/21/2011
So for $25,000,000,000 we reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 1 molecule of CO2 for every 1,000,000 molecules of atmosphere.

Wow. That is REALLY worth it. It'll make ALL the difference in the world.

Sign us all up.

What a bunch of dopes.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Trepasky
Sanity is neither free nor easy
12:39 PM on 09/21/2011
ANd your numbers fail to show the reduction of co2 emissions. Instead you resort to making it look like a small number versus the entire atmosphere.

CO2 is a small percentage of the atmosphere but we have increased its levels by 30% in just 150 years. 30% is a big number.

Finally you resort to name calling to make your point.

Folks may wonder why.
photo
Ragnar Danneskjold
Defender of Liberty
12:44 PM on 09/21/2011
THe poor and middle class will suffer the most from paying more to heat thier homes and get to work. Epic leftist failure.
03:15 PM on 09/21/2011
30%?? Where did you find that "data"...an unreviewed, UN funded, ICRP report???

Assuming you will accept real data, you should go read the peer-revie­wed science journal Remote Sensing study which used actual NASA data and puts alarmist ICRP models related to CO2 warming in the fantasy island catagory.

"NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-revie­wed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheri­c carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed."
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Proud member of the reality-based community!
12:08 AM on 09/24/2011
I am sure your numbers are correst.  Yea, right!  Why do you hate science?   Do you want to see China and India train all the scientists and win all the Nobel prizes.
photo
yukonsam
This space reserved for self-referential irony.
11:52 AM on 09/21/2011
Any action by institutions such as the United Nations, World Bank or International Monetary Fund will provoke a knee-jerk response from broad elements of the fringe right, who view working with the international community as a grave threat to American primacy and soverignty.

Wolverines!
photo
Ragnar Danneskjold
Defender of Liberty
12:45 PM on 09/21/2011
Yep. but it is not knee jerk, it is projectile vomi ting because we have seen this game before from the leftist extortionists at the UN.
03:16 PM on 09/21/2011
"NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-revie­­wed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheri­­c carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MikeWebster
Always happy.
04:34 AM on 09/27/2011
I see. When was that again? And I mean in reality, not in your fevered paranoid imagination.