Tag Archives: Fossil-fuel subsidy

The fossil-fuel subsidies blind spot

Belgium apparently signed the declaration to end “fossil fuel financing”:

Tweet John Murton 2021-11-12

The guy on the left is John Murton (UK Envoy to COP26) who is thanking Zakia Khattabi sitting on the left (Belgian Minister of Climate, Environment, Sustainable Development & Green Deal from Ecolo, the French-speaking Green Party of Belgium) for joining the declaration. The inconvenient reality is that the Belgian Federal Government very recently approved subsidizing the building of new gas-fired power plants in order to replace nuclear power plants.

Most comments below the tweet highlighted the hypocritical nature of that signature, rightfully so. John Murton tried to defuse the situation by responding that he actually meant “international financing” or “overseas financing”, but nobody was particularly impressed by that intervention, also rightfully so. It is still hypocritical to pledge to end international/overseas fossil-fuel financing while at the same time subsidizing the fossil-fuel industry nationally.

Continue reading


Increasing fossil fuel subsidies by 6 million euros and proud of it…

A remarkable tweet that I stumbled upon (translated from Dutch):

You often hear on the right that Belgium has the highest tax level. What is not told is where the money is going.

Belgium, king of the fossil fuel subsidy …

Tweet Tobias Daneels 2020-08-20: fuel subsidy

Continue reading

European fossil fuel “subsidies”: scraping the bottom of the barrel

A rather confusing news article from the Guardian written: European countries spend billions a year on fossil fuel subsidies, survey shows by Fiona Harvey.

Eleven European countries were surveyed and it was found that those subsidies totalled to a huge number (my emphasis):

Governments of 11 European nations are providing subsidies totalling more than £80bn a year to fossil fuel industries, green campaigners have claimed.

Who those “green campaigners” are is not really clear from the article. There is no link to their survey either. All the links in the article go to other Guardian articles. It is not really clear how these campaigners surveyed those countries or what their methodology was. What is known are the surveyed countries: the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden and the UK.

Let’s start with the break-down of the fossil-fuels subsidies of those countries as reported by the Guardian journalist.

Continue reading

Comparison subsidies for coal/nuclear and renewables: apples versus oranges?

The 4th myth in the Greenpeace brochure is:

The growth of renewable energy in Germany is only possible thanks to subsidies

This is the summary of how they try to debunk it:

Support for renewable energy in Germany is nothing compared to the aid that has gone to coal and nuclear power in the last forty years. It received 631 billion euro of aid, compared to 67 billion euro for renewable energy. Also the support for renewable energy reduces year after year.

That doesn’t make much sense. Those three sentences raise more questions than they answered. What do they consider renewables this time (solar and wind or also hydro and/or biomass)? What is their exact definition of a “subsidy” and is that the same for both renewables and coal/nuclear? Even if these are the same or similar, is it fair to compare both subsidies over a 40-year time frame considering coal and nuclear were there from the beginning and renewables only got traction in the last years of that period? They suggest that subsidies for coal/nuclear are high, contrary to those for renewables that are low and ever lowering. Is that really true?

Continue reading

All subsidies are equal, but some are more equal than others


When looking for more information in previous post, I found a lot of information on the advantages, but even more about the disadvantages, of those alleged “fossil fuel subsidies”. I just copy/pasted them below, some are obviously related or very close to each other. Here goes:

    The advantages:

  • avoid inflation
  • shield citizens from the pain of price increases in global energy markets
  • expect and demand that their national resource be made available to them at cheap prices
  • an easy means to distribute state benefits to the citizens without the need for complex administrative capabilities and income testing
  • believed to help alleviate poverty by making energy economically accessible to the poor
  • promote industrialization
  • help generate employment opportunities
  • manage inflation
  • could help deter potential protests.
    The disadvantages:

  • are expensive; they eat up national budgets
  • benefits end up going mostly to the richest citizens
  • crowd out more productive government spending on education or infrastructure and reduce energy efficiency
  • mess with the law of supply and demand
  • discouraging investment in both alternative energy and fossil fuel exploration
  • are an inefficient means to alleviate energy poverty
  • economic inefficiency
  • adverse impacts on social equity
  • high fiscal cost for the government.

Most claimed that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. Okay, IF the issues are actually subsidies (and not just an artifact of the Price Gap approach), then I basically can agree with all of them, pro and contra.

But I do recognize these disadvantages. They are ridiculously close to the disadvantages of renewables subsidies. In my humble opinion, the disadvantages of fossil fuel subsidies also apply to renewables subsidy.

For example, the subsidies of renewables made energy much more expensive and energy poverty are on the increase. This is only the beginning. In 2012, our Minister of Economy froze the energy prices, so power companies could not charge more to the costumer. They did swallow all the extra costs themselves. Until now. But this will be undone next year and the expectation is that prices will then rise with 30% to compensate for the loss these companies had since the rule was introduced. If the price increase until 2012 already had a negative effect, then wait until the prices are free again and power companies are starting to recuperate what they had to pay until now.

In the meanwhile the benefits end up going mostly to the richest citizens. In our little country it went to those who could free up the money to invest in renewables and harvest the subsidies.

“Crowd out more productive government spending” is not hard to understand. If a billion euros go to the aid of the renewables that are not economically viable, this means less budget for other issues. As long as wind and solar are seen as the only solution to our energy problem, the money will go to intermittent power production.

At first it seems a bit counterintuitive, but subsidizing renewables discourages investment in well needed technology, even if they are necessary to make intermittent energy to work in a continuous working system. Even Agoria realized that the current subsidizing of intermittent energy sources discourages investments on storage of energy when production exceeds demand.

No doubt that it messes with the law of supply and demand. Subsididizing renewables makes other forms of power generation uneconomically, therefor nobody wants to do necessary investments in replacing old power stations that should be taken out of use. This means that the most needed new fast cycling gas turbines (needed to counteract the intermittent nature of the renewables) wouldn’t be build and our country stays with its outdated power stations. Which meant a danger to our power supply in the near future and, this somehow seemed to come as a surprise, more emissions… In the end they will be build eventually, but it would be a long road to get there and there would be a lot of resistance. Yet, they would not have other choices. The power generation infrastructure is old and there is a desperate need for new plants to replace older ones.

But remember, it was desire of the International Energy Agency to use the saved money to “invest” in renewables. None of the two subsidies makes much sense. Apparently the IEA find it inappropriate that fossil fuel producing countries make their fossil fuels available to their own citizens at a fairer price than the international market price, yet they have no problem advocating uneconomic and inefficient forms of energy which will make energy more expensive and less reliable for their citizens…

Subsidy or no subsidy, that is the question

gas price difference

It has been told in many shades and colors, apparently fossil-fuels are subsidized. I have never really perceived this as truthful, but also never looked into what actually is being claimed. It at least seemed exaggerated: my thoughts where that this “subsidy” was probably something else, but dressed up as a subsidy.

A couple days ago I read an article about those alleged fossil-fuel subsidies and in it they even went a step further this time. The claim was not only that these subsidies amount to 544 billion dollars per year, but that we could use these subsidies to “invest” in renewable sources of energy (for which we would need 800 billion dollars per year):

Much of the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of renewable energy investment that is needed to prevent the worst effects of climate change could come from the substantial subsidies given to fossil fuels, a new report has found.

Maybe a good time to start checking what these subsidies actually consist of. I had a hard time believing the statement that there is 544 billion dollars of subsidies on fossil fuels. As far as I know, fossil fuels fuel the economy. I can’t believe that someone in its right mind would subsidize something that is generating money. At least in our country, but also in our neighboring countries, fossil fuels are taxed heavily and governments EARN money from fossil fuel use.

There are however some things that could indicate some sort of a subsidy. There are some groups of people that get their energy cheaper. For example, farmers are taxed less on the fuel for their tractors and other machinery. Also the poor pay less for their energy use. But the government doesn’t pay for their fossil fuel use, but get a little bit less income from it. The reasons for these are to keep the local food prices low or preventing that the poor come into problems.

Another thing I considered was that the price of oil is not only the price of the product, transport and profit, but there are also other elements in it, some of it political, that make it much more expensive than just the product itself. Everybody needs it, so this will drive prices up. In that sense some subsidies could exist.

The first thing I found was the distribution of the energy subsidies globally and this information was telling. This is how the International Energy Agency displays it:


It was surprising to see that none of the countries in which those subsidies were given were European, USA or Australian (these are the countries that are willing to do something or at least talked about it in the past). Even more surprising was to see the countries with the highest subsidies (in dark red): it were predominantly countries in the Middle East and North Africa! Surprising because these are oil PRODUCING countries. The report seem to rest on the same IEA data and came to the same conclusion:

Oil-exporting countries were responsible for approximately two-thirds of total fossil subsidies, while greater than 95% of all direct subsidies occurred in developing countries.

This made me think about what this elusive “subsidy” is actually about. Apparently the inhabitants of these oil/gas producing countries pay less for the use of fossil fuels. But less compared to what? In most discussions it is not really defined and seems to be the “international market price” or the “world market price”. But the price of oil in the international market bears little relationship to the cost of production. So of course those people don’t pay the international price. They live in a country with plentiful resources. Their product is not scarce for them at all. To countries that they export to (countries with less of no natural fossil fuel resources like our little country), this oil or gas has more added value than in the country were it is plentiful available.

A clear definition of fossil fuel subsidy is mostly missing from the discussions. Does it really mean that this subsidy is the difference in price of the product on the local market compared to the international market? Those governments will not really pay money to keep price low, but will have less income (compared to when they would sell it internationally). Or do they let them sell cheaper than the production cost plus the profit for the producer? In that case they are actually paying community money for the local distribution of their product and I would have no problem calling that a subsidy. So I am not really sure how much of these 544 billions of “subsidy” is actually a subsidy or rather an artifact of their price gap approach.

According to the IEA methodology they define it as such:

[…] The price gap is the amount by which an end-use price falls short of the reference price and its existence indicates the presence of a subsidy.[…]

For net exporters, reference prices were based on the export parity price: the price of a product at the nearest international hub, adjusted for quality differences if necessary, minus the cost of freight and insurance back to the net exporter, plus the cost of internal distribution and marketing and any VAT. […]

But this reference price of a product can be substantial. This was made clear in a paper of the University of Uyo. Nigeria is the largest oil producer in Africa and the president came to the idea that the fuel prices of petrol and household kerosene (which were the fuels that were regulated at that time) were too low. Before 2012 those fuels were sold for 65 Naira per liter at the pump. The imported price was 138.81 Naira per liter, so the president called the difference of 73.81 Naira a “subsidy”, as whispered in by the IMF, World Bank and others. The investigators now calculated the production price as 34.03 Naira per liter, this when the prices would be dictated by the forces of demand & supply, in stead of international demand which is substantially higher.

But then there is that other issue. The claim was that much of the hundreds of billions of dollars needed for subsidizing renewable energy could come from the fossil fuel subsidies. Even if it would be actual subsidies, it is a developing nations thingy and the money that was used as a “subsidy” was for about two thirds generated by the selling of … fossil fuels, probably with a huge profit.

How much chance is there that these “subsidies” could go to investments for renewables? Whatever the developed countries would save would be insignificant. Unless of course the developed nations could get the developing nations crazy enough to let them adopt the international prices in stead of the prices of demand & supply and to use the “saved” money to invest in renewable energy in stead of other pressing priorities such as for example health care or education.