G20 Looks to Weaken Fossil Fuel Subsidy Agreement


At a largely disappointing G20 summit last September, one of the few bright spots was the agreement that member nations would phase out fossil fuel subsidies. But as G20 prepares to meet this week in Toronto, it looks like that commitment will be substantially watered down.

Leaked draft language (PDF) obtained by ClimateWire indicates that leaders may weaken the language on fossil fuels, suggesting that commitments will be “voluntary” and “member specific”:

We reviewed progress made to date in identifying inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption and we agree to continue working to develop voluntary, member-specific approaches for the rationalization and phase out of such measures.

“This is quite worrisome,” said Steve Kretzman, head of Oil Change International, a group advocating for the subsidy cuts. “This amounts to saying they may phase out fossil fuel subsidies if they feel like it.”

It’s not yet known which G20 member(s) are responsible for the less-ambitious language. It might not be the US this time, despite America’s reputation when it comes to international agreements. Obama’s 2011 budget called for the elimination of 12 tax breaks for oil, gas, and coal companies, which is expected to raise $39 billion in the next 10 years. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and several other senators have drafted a bill that would follow through on that, which looks likely to be included in the Senate’s energy, oil spill, and (possibly) climate legislation next month.

The G20 meeting starts Sunday in Toronto.

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate