NEW: In @nature today, my colleagues and I make the case that ending fossil fuel subsidies matters greatly, “in ways both material and political.” THREAD.
📰No pay wall: rdcu.be/b1fCr
📰No pay wall: rdcu.be/b1fCr
2/n: My co-authors @SEI_Erickson, @harrovanasselt, Doug Koplow, @mlaz_sei, Peter Newell, @NaomiOreskes, & I publish this paper in response to this 2018 article by Jewell et al. that claimed emissions reductions due to cutting subsidies would be "small" ⬇️ nature.com/articles/natur…
3/n: This stood in stark contrast to earlier research by some of us, which found that, without subsidies, HALF of the US's future oil production would be unprofitable at $50/barrel oil prices. nature.com/articles/s4156…
4/n: Today in @nature, we first argue that the emissions reductions from subsidy removal that Jewell et al. themselves calculate – 0.5 to 2 Gt CO2 per year by 2030 – are not in fact “small.”
5/n: 0.5–2 Gt CO2 is roughly *one quarter* of energy-related emission reductions pledged by all countries under the Paris Agreement. All from a single policy approach.
Yes, ending fossil fuel subsidies isn’t a silver bullet climate fix. But that’s cos' there's no such thing.
Yes, ending fossil fuel subsidies isn’t a silver bullet climate fix. But that’s cos' there's no such thing.
6/n: We also use a simple oil market model to show that Jewell et al. have likely underestimated emissions reductions due to ending subsidies; in the case study of just one specific subsidy, by hundreds of millions of tons of CO2.
7/n: Our point is this: Hundreds of millions of tons of CO2 reductions from the removal of a single type of subsidy is nothing to be sneezed at. Presenting it any other way to policymakers and the public is, in my opinion, misleading.
8/n: Second, our paper argues that the most troubling impact and legacy of fossil fuel subsidies may in fact be the political barriers – rather than financial ones – that fossil fuel producers have erected over decades against decarbonization efforts.
9/n: Just last week, experts studying social tipping points argued "that redirecting national subsid[ies] to renewables...or removing the subsidies for fossil-fuel tech are the tipping interventions that are needed for the take-off & diffusion of fossil-fuel–free energy systems."
10/n: Ref ⬆️: pnas.org/content/117/5/…
By @ilonamotto @PIK_Climate @fireboldy @jrockstrom @avitbhowmik @RogerCremades @AlexLenferna et al.
By @ilonamotto @PIK_Climate @fireboldy @jrockstrom @avitbhowmik @RogerCremades @AlexLenferna et al.
11/n: This is less a critique of one specific study, more a red flag to climate modelers, policymakers, & advocates everywhere: When it comes to fossil fuel financing & politics, the models that policymakers rely on have a blind spot. This is a systemic issue that needs fixing.
12/n: In the meantime, the public and policymakers should be under no illusions: Holding back catastrophic global warming requires dramatically reducing fossil fuel production, and subsidies to fossil fuel companies undermine that goal.
