-
Categories
-
Pharmaceutical Intermediates
-
Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients
-
Food Additives
- Industrial Coatings
- Agrochemicals
- Dyes and Pigments
- Surfactant
- Flavors and Fragrances
- Chemical Reagents
- Catalyst and Auxiliary
- Natural Products
- Inorganic Chemistry
-
Organic Chemistry
-
Biochemical Engineering
- Analytical Chemistry
-
Cosmetic Ingredient
- Water Treatment Chemical
-
Pharmaceutical Intermediates
Promotion
ECHEMI Mall
Wholesale
Weekly Price
Exhibition
News
-
Trade Service
New reports released by Friends of the Earth and Oil Change International show that G20 countries have provided at least $77 billion a year in public funding
for oil, gas and coal projects since the Paris climate agreement was reached.
The report argues that G20 government-backed export credit agencies, development finance institutions and multilateral development banks support fossil fuels more than three times as much as they provide to clean energy, although some financial institutions in G20 countries are phasing out fossil fuel investments, but this is far from enough
.
As G20 governments prepare trillions of dollars in stimulus spending in response to COVID-19, the new report shows that their public finances have so far been very different from the money needed to limit warming to 1.
5°C
.
The report urges governments to stop using public funds to prop up the fossil fuel sector and instead invest in a sustainable recovery
.
Kate DeAngelis, senior international policy analyst at Friends of the Earth, said: "G20 countries are still subsidizing
the fossil fuel industry.
”
"Fossil fuel companies know their days are over
.
Their lobbyists are using the COVID-19 crisis as a cover to try to secure the flood of new government aid they depend on for survival," said
Bronwen Tucker, research analyst at Oil Change International.
"Government funding must support a just transition from fossil fuels to protect workers, communities and the climate, both within and outside their borders
.
Instead of financing another major crisis (climate change), our governments should invest in a resilient future
.
”
Anabela Lemos, director of Justicia Ambiental, said: "Such a high investment would generate billions of dollars in profits for foreign companies like Total, which is already causing poverty and oppression to already vulnerable local communities, which is unacceptable
.
”
Using data from the International Petroleum Change Organization's database, the report analyzes public energy finance from G20 export credit agencies (ECAs) and development finance
institutions (DFIs) and G20 countries-controlled multilateral development banks (MDBs).
It does not include direct subsidies provided to the industry through taxes and fiscal subsidies
.
The analysis found that support for fossil fuels has not diminished
since the Paris Agreement was signed.
Efforts to reduce coal financing suffered a major setback, with G20 countries increasing their annual support for coal by an average of $1.
3 billion
between 2016-2018 compared to 2013-2015.
Support for oil and gas has held steady at $64 billion a year, suggesting that public financial institutions are far from aligning their financing with the adjustments needed to limit warming to the internationally agreed limit of 1.
5°C
.
Export credit agencies (ECAs) are the worst-performing public finance agencies, supporting fossil fuels nearly 14 times more than clean energy, with fossil fuels at $40.
1 billion a year and clean $2.
9 billion
.
New reports released by Friends of the Earth and Oil Change International show that G20 countries have provided at least $77 billion a year in public funding
for oil, gas and coal projects since the Paris climate agreement was reached.
The report argues that G20 government-backed export credit agencies, development finance institutions and multilateral development banks support fossil fuels more than three times as much as they provide to clean energy, although some financial institutions in G20 countries are phasing out fossil fuel investments, but this is far from enough
.
As G20 governments prepare trillions of dollars in stimulus spending in response to COVID-19, the new report shows that their public finances have so far been very different from the money needed to limit warming to 1.
5°C
.
The report urges governments to stop using public funds to prop up the fossil fuel sector and instead invest in a sustainable recovery
.
Kate DeAngelis, senior international policy analyst at Friends of the Earth, said: "G20 countries are still subsidizing
the fossil fuel industry.
”
"Fossil fuel companies know their days are over
.
Their lobbyists are using the COVID-19 crisis as a cover to try to secure the flood of new government aid they depend on for survival," said
Bronwen Tucker, research analyst at Oil Change International.
"Government funding must support a just transition from fossil fuels to protect workers, communities and the climate, both within and outside their borders
.
Instead of financing another major crisis (climate change), our governments should invest in a resilient future
.
”
Anabela Lemos, director of Justicia Ambiental, said: "Such a high investment would generate billions of dollars in profits for foreign companies like Total, which is already causing poverty and oppression to already vulnerable local communities, which is unacceptable
.
”
Using data from the International Petroleum Change Organization's database, the report analyzes public energy finance from G20 export credit agencies (ECAs) and development finance
institutions (DFIs) and G20 countries-controlled multilateral development banks (MDBs).
It does not include direct subsidies provided to the industry through taxes and fiscal subsidies
.
The analysis found that support for fossil fuels has not diminished
since the Paris Agreement was signed.
Efforts to reduce coal financing suffered a major setback, with G20 countries increasing their annual support for coal by an average of $1.
3 billion
between 2016-2018 compared to 2013-2015.
Support for oil and gas has held steady at $64 billion a year, suggesting that public financial institutions are far from aligning their financing with the adjustments needed to limit warming to the internationally agreed limit of 1.
5°C
.
Export credit agencies (ECAs) are the worst-performing public finance agencies, supporting fossil fuels nearly 14 times more than clean energy, with fossil fuels at $40.
1 billion a year and clean $2.
9 billion
.