

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
One of the greatest contradictions of our time is that while world leaders profess concern over a rapidly warming planet, they continue to spend hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars subsidizing the fossil fuel industries that are driving climate change.
In fact, according to a new report released on Monday by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)--a global forum on economic policy--the world's richest nations spend roughly $160-200 billion each year supporting fossil fuel consumption and production.
"We're totally schizophrenic," said Angel Gurria, secretary-general of the Paris-based organization. "We're trying to reduce emissions, and we subsidize the consumption of fossil fuels. These policies are not obsolete, they're dangerous legacies of a bygone era when pollution was viewed as a tolerable side effect of economic growth. They should be erased from the books."
Further, Gurria pointed out that governments "are spending almost twice as much money supporting fossil fuels as is needed to meet the climate-finance objectives set by the international community, which call for mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020."
The OECD Inventory identified 800 separate spending programs and tax breaks used by the governments of its 34 member countries, plus six key emerging economies--Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Russia and South Africa--that encourage oil, gas, and coal development.
"The measures counted by the OECD covered some of the most obscure pieces of national tax codes--including direct controls on gasoline prices, depreciation allowances for oil drillers, breaks for refiners, credits for infrastructure like pipelines and stimulus for technology to clean up coal emissions," Bloomberg reports.
Such subsidies, the report notes, distort costs and prices, "create inefficiencies in the way we generate and use energy," are costly for governments, and--most importantly--"undermine efforts to make our economies less carbon-intensive while exacerbating the damage to human health caused by air pollution."
The warning comes as representatives are preparing to meet in New York for the UN Sustainable Development Summit next week to set new development goals ahead of the upcoming COP21 climate talks in Paris in November and December.
"The time is ripe for countries to demonstrate they are serious about combating climate change," Gurria added, "and reforming harmful fossil fuel support is a good place to start."
Indeed, a separate report published by Greenpeace on Monday argues that it is possible to reach 100 percent renewable energy by 2050 if countries "prioritize keeping coal, oil and gas in the ground while accelerating the transition to clean energy like wind and solar."
Last week, climate activists staged a symbolic 'tug-of-war' between polluting fossil fuels and renewable energy as they protested outside a meeting of Europe's Environment Ministers as they hashed out EU's negotiating position for the Paris climate summit.
EU leaders have agreed to cut emissions by 40 percent compared to 1990 levels by 2030, and said they won't settle for anything less than legally binding targets that will be reviewed every five years. In comparison, the U.S. has put forth a non-binding pledge to cut emissions by 26-28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.
Environmentalists, backed by statements made by the UN's own climate chief Christiana Figueres, agree that such pledges fall drastically short of what's needed to keep global warming beneath 2degC global warming target.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
One of the greatest contradictions of our time is that while world leaders profess concern over a rapidly warming planet, they continue to spend hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars subsidizing the fossil fuel industries that are driving climate change.
In fact, according to a new report released on Monday by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)--a global forum on economic policy--the world's richest nations spend roughly $160-200 billion each year supporting fossil fuel consumption and production.
"We're totally schizophrenic," said Angel Gurria, secretary-general of the Paris-based organization. "We're trying to reduce emissions, and we subsidize the consumption of fossil fuels. These policies are not obsolete, they're dangerous legacies of a bygone era when pollution was viewed as a tolerable side effect of economic growth. They should be erased from the books."
Further, Gurria pointed out that governments "are spending almost twice as much money supporting fossil fuels as is needed to meet the climate-finance objectives set by the international community, which call for mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020."
The OECD Inventory identified 800 separate spending programs and tax breaks used by the governments of its 34 member countries, plus six key emerging economies--Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Russia and South Africa--that encourage oil, gas, and coal development.
"The measures counted by the OECD covered some of the most obscure pieces of national tax codes--including direct controls on gasoline prices, depreciation allowances for oil drillers, breaks for refiners, credits for infrastructure like pipelines and stimulus for technology to clean up coal emissions," Bloomberg reports.
Such subsidies, the report notes, distort costs and prices, "create inefficiencies in the way we generate and use energy," are costly for governments, and--most importantly--"undermine efforts to make our economies less carbon-intensive while exacerbating the damage to human health caused by air pollution."
The warning comes as representatives are preparing to meet in New York for the UN Sustainable Development Summit next week to set new development goals ahead of the upcoming COP21 climate talks in Paris in November and December.
"The time is ripe for countries to demonstrate they are serious about combating climate change," Gurria added, "and reforming harmful fossil fuel support is a good place to start."
Indeed, a separate report published by Greenpeace on Monday argues that it is possible to reach 100 percent renewable energy by 2050 if countries "prioritize keeping coal, oil and gas in the ground while accelerating the transition to clean energy like wind and solar."
Last week, climate activists staged a symbolic 'tug-of-war' between polluting fossil fuels and renewable energy as they protested outside a meeting of Europe's Environment Ministers as they hashed out EU's negotiating position for the Paris climate summit.
EU leaders have agreed to cut emissions by 40 percent compared to 1990 levels by 2030, and said they won't settle for anything less than legally binding targets that will be reviewed every five years. In comparison, the U.S. has put forth a non-binding pledge to cut emissions by 26-28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.
Environmentalists, backed by statements made by the UN's own climate chief Christiana Figueres, agree that such pledges fall drastically short of what's needed to keep global warming beneath 2degC global warming target.
One of the greatest contradictions of our time is that while world leaders profess concern over a rapidly warming planet, they continue to spend hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars subsidizing the fossil fuel industries that are driving climate change.
In fact, according to a new report released on Monday by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)--a global forum on economic policy--the world's richest nations spend roughly $160-200 billion each year supporting fossil fuel consumption and production.
"We're totally schizophrenic," said Angel Gurria, secretary-general of the Paris-based organization. "We're trying to reduce emissions, and we subsidize the consumption of fossil fuels. These policies are not obsolete, they're dangerous legacies of a bygone era when pollution was viewed as a tolerable side effect of economic growth. They should be erased from the books."
Further, Gurria pointed out that governments "are spending almost twice as much money supporting fossil fuels as is needed to meet the climate-finance objectives set by the international community, which call for mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020."
The OECD Inventory identified 800 separate spending programs and tax breaks used by the governments of its 34 member countries, plus six key emerging economies--Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Russia and South Africa--that encourage oil, gas, and coal development.
"The measures counted by the OECD covered some of the most obscure pieces of national tax codes--including direct controls on gasoline prices, depreciation allowances for oil drillers, breaks for refiners, credits for infrastructure like pipelines and stimulus for technology to clean up coal emissions," Bloomberg reports.
Such subsidies, the report notes, distort costs and prices, "create inefficiencies in the way we generate and use energy," are costly for governments, and--most importantly--"undermine efforts to make our economies less carbon-intensive while exacerbating the damage to human health caused by air pollution."
The warning comes as representatives are preparing to meet in New York for the UN Sustainable Development Summit next week to set new development goals ahead of the upcoming COP21 climate talks in Paris in November and December.
"The time is ripe for countries to demonstrate they are serious about combating climate change," Gurria added, "and reforming harmful fossil fuel support is a good place to start."
Indeed, a separate report published by Greenpeace on Monday argues that it is possible to reach 100 percent renewable energy by 2050 if countries "prioritize keeping coal, oil and gas in the ground while accelerating the transition to clean energy like wind and solar."
Last week, climate activists staged a symbolic 'tug-of-war' between polluting fossil fuels and renewable energy as they protested outside a meeting of Europe's Environment Ministers as they hashed out EU's negotiating position for the Paris climate summit.
EU leaders have agreed to cut emissions by 40 percent compared to 1990 levels by 2030, and said they won't settle for anything less than legally binding targets that will be reviewed every five years. In comparison, the U.S. has put forth a non-binding pledge to cut emissions by 26-28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.
Environmentalists, backed by statements made by the UN's own climate chief Christiana Figueres, agree that such pledges fall drastically short of what's needed to keep global warming beneath 2degC global warming target.