Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why fossil fuel producer subsidies matter

  • Matters Arising
  • Published:

From Nature

View current issue Submit your manuscript

Matters Arising to this article was published on 05 February 2020

The Original Article was published on 08 February 2018

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Data availability

The authors declare that data supporting the calculations in columns B through to D of Table 1 are included as Supplementary Information. The raw data analysed by the authors for Extended Data Fig. 1 are available from Rystad Energy in their UCube database, but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the referenced study, and so are not publicly available. Raw data are available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of Rystad Energy.

Code availability

No custom code or mathematical algorithms were used to generate results reported in this paper. The entirety of the oil market model is provided as equation (1) in the Methods.

References

  1. Leaders of the G20 G20 Leaders’ Statement: The Pittsburgh Summit. https://www.oecd.org/g20/summits/pittsburgh/ (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2009).

  2. Jewell, J. et al. Limited emission reductions from fuel subsidy removal except in energy-exporting regions. Nature 554, 229–233 (2018).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Erickson, P., Down, A., Lazarus, M. & Koplow, D. Effect of subsidies to fossil fuel companies on United States crude oil production. Nat. Energy 2, 891–898 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  4. Merrill, L., Gerasimchuk, I., Wooders, P. & Bassi, A. Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform Research Suggests Emission Reductions Equivalent to at Least a Quarter of the Commitments Countries Made at Paris. https://www.iisd.org/gsi/subsidy-watch-blog/fossil-fuel-subsidy-reform-research-suggests-emission-reductions-equivalent (International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2018).

  5. IEA World Energy Investment 2018 (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2018).

  6. Erickson, P. & Lazarus, M. Global emissions: new oil investments boost carbon lock-in. Nature 526, 43 (2015).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. OECD Companion to the Inventory of Support Measures for Fossil Fuels 2015 (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2015).

  8. Sawyer, D. & Stiebert, S. Fossil Fuels—At What Cost? Government support for upstream oil activities in three Canadian provinces: Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador https://www.iisd.org/library/fossil-fuels-what-cost-government-support-upstream-oil-activities-three-canadian-provinces (International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2010).

  9. Erickson, P. & Down, A. How Tax Support For The Petroleum Industry Could Contradict Norway’s Climate Goals https://www.sei.org/publications/tax-petroleum-norways-climate-goals/ (Stockholm Environment Institute, 2017).

  10. Iyer, G. C. et al. Improved representation of investment decisions in assessments of CO2 mitigation. Nat. Clim. Chang. 5, 436–440 (2015).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Fattouh, B., Poudineh, R. & West, R. Energy Transition, Uncertainty, and the Implications of Change in the Risk Preferences of Fossil Fuels Investors https://www.oxfordenergy.org/publications/energy-transition-uncertainty-implications-change-risk-preferences-fossil-fuels-investors/?v=7516fd43adaa (Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, 2019).

  12. Seto, K. C. et al. Carbon lock-in: types, causes, and policy implications. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41, 425–452 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sovacool, B. K. Reviewing, reforming, and rethinking global energy subsidies: towards a political economy research agenda. Ecol. Econ. 135, 150–163 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Newell, P. & Johnstone, P. The political economy of incumbency. In The Politics of Fossil Fuel Subsidies and their Reform (eds van Asselt, H. & Skovgaard, J.) 66–80 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2018).

  15. Koplow, D. Global energy subsidies: scale, opportunity costs, and barriers to reform. In Energy Poverty (eds Halff, A., Sovacool, B. K. & Rozhon, J.) 316–337 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2014).

  16. Oreskes, N. & Conway, E. M. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming (Bloomsbury Press, 2010).

  17. Geels, F. W., Tyfield, D. & Urry, J. Regime resistance against low-carbon transitions: introducing politics and power into the multi-level perspective. Theory Cult. Soc. 31, 21–40 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Supran, G. & Oreskes, N. Assessing ExxonMobil’s climate change communications (1977–2014). Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 084019 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  19. Rogelj, J. et al. Mitigation pathways compatible with 1.5 °C in the context of sustainable development. In Global Warming Of 1.5 °C: An IPCC Special Report On The Impacts Of Global Warming Of 1.5 °C Above Pre-Industrial Levels And Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, In The Context Of Strengthening The Global Response To The Threat Of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, And Efforts To Eradicate Poverty Ch. 2 (IPCC, 2018).

  20. Erickson, P. Confronting carbon lock-in: Canada’s oil sands. SEI discussion brief. https://www.sei.org/publications/confronting-carbon-lock-canadas-oil-sands/ (Stockholm Environment Institute, 2018).

Download references

Acknowledgements

P.E. and M.L. thank A. Vogt-Schilb, S. Pye and N. Bauer for discussions about IAM models. P.E. acknowledges funding from the Schmidt Family Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Stockholm Environment Institute US, Seattle, WA, USA

    Peter Erickson & Michael Lazarus

  2. University of Eastern Finland, Law School, Joensuu, Finland

    Harro van Asselt

  3. Earth Track, Inc, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Doug Koplow

  4. Centre for Global Political Economy, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK

    Peter Newell

  5. Department of the History of Science, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Naomi Oreskes & Geoffrey Supran

Authors
  1. Peter Erickson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Harro van Asselt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Doug Koplow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael Lazarus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peter Newell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Naomi Oreskes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Geoffrey Supran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

P.E. and M.L. conceptualized the research (with input from H.v.A., D.K., N.O. and G.S.). P.E. carried out the numerical modelling. P.E. wrote and revised the manuscript (with contributions from H.v.A, D.K., M.L., P.N., N.O. and G.S.).

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Erickson.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Fig. 1 Cost curve of world oil production in 2030.

The cumulative supply of oil in 2030 is shown for increasing oil price. Most blocks (64 of 80) in this cost curve represent a combination of a particular stage of development (one of four) in eight major world regions (the continents plus the Middle East and Russia minus Antarctica), whether onshore or offshore. Further (16) blocks represent the USA or Canada, since they are major new sources of oil (about 41% and 7% of all regions that are not yet producing oil). The figure is adapted from figure 1 in ref. 20 and based on data from Rystad Energy (see ‘Data availability’ section).

Supplementary information

Supplementary Methods

Supplementary Data

This file contains source data for Table 1.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Erickson, P., van Asselt, H., Koplow, D. et al. Why fossil fuel producer subsidies matter. Nature 578, E1–E4 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1920-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1920-x

  • Springer Nature Limited

This article is cited by

Search

Navigation