Blog Post

The European Green Deal must cut hidden fossil fuel subsidies

Brussels should ensure that fossil fuels do not get direct or indirect support from governments

By: Date: March 4, 2020 Topic: Energy & Climate

One of the basic ideas in economics is that you tend to get the best results if people or firms that take decisions have to take account of all the benefits and costs. Climate change and pollution perhaps represent the two most evident examples of situations where that may not happen. Emitters and polluters have no incentive to consider the impact of their emissions and pollution for society as a whole. It is what economics textbooks call an ‘externality’: the adverse effects of greenhouse gas emissions or pollution are ‘external’ to the market, which means there is usually only an ethical – rather than an economic – incentive for firms and consumers to reduce their emissions. That is, when free markets do not maximise society’s welfare, they are said to ‘fail’ and policy intervention may be needed to correct them or, more precisely, to internalise them. The most common way governments and institutions do so is to impose a tax on the producers of a negative externality. This is could be done to encourage a polluter to reduce their emissions. It is interesting to note that this principle is 100-year-old, as Arthur Cecil Pigou – an economist of the University of Cambridge – first introduced the concept of externalities and the idea of correcting them with a tax in 1920.

As the EU develops its European Green Deal, it is important to evaluate whether European countries are successfully internalising the climate externality, or not. To do so, it is crucial to analyse how fossil fuels are currently subsidised. Combustion of fossil fuels is the main cause of climate change, and phasing-out fossil fuels is the primary solution. Consequently, the main climate policy is to ensure that fossil fuels do not get direct or indirect support from governments.

Fossil fuel subsidies can be measured in two different ways. The first is a narrow measure, termed pre-tax subsidies, which simply reflects differences between the amount consumers actually pay for fuel use and the corresponding cost of supplying the fuel. The second is a broader measure, termed post-tax subsidies, which reflects differences between actual consumer fuel prices and how much consumers would pay if prices fully reflected supply costs plus the taxes needed to reflect environmental costs and revenue requirements.

While the international debate tends to focus on the first measure of subsidies, it seems more sensible to focus on the second, broader, measure as this is the only way to unveil the eventual ‘hidden subsidies’ given to fossil fuels simply by not properly internalising (i.e., taxing) their environmental costs including climate change, local air pollution traffic congestion and traffic accidents.

The most accurate estimation of global post-tax subsidies is provided by the International Monetary Fund. According to that, EU post-tax subsidies stood at $261 billion in 2015 – with the top-4 subsidisers being Germany ($72 billion), France ($35 billion), Poland ($29 billion) and Spain ($25 billion) (Table 1).

In the context of the European Green Deal, President von der Leyen proposed a Sustainable Investment Plan to mobilise a “green investment wave” of € 1 trillion over ten years. To put things into perspective, the cumulative amount of current € post-tax subsidies projected over ten years goes well beyond € 2 trillion.

This implies that in the context of the European Green Deal, it will be of paramount importance to push for the full internalisation of fossil fuels’ environmental externalities. Hence, Europe’s current carbon pricing system needs to be substantially scaled up.

Today, only half of European emissions are priced, and carbon prices remain too low to drive significant behavioural changes. So, it is clear that carbon prices should go wider and higher. A meaningful carbon price should be established for all sectors, by reforming and strengthening the EU emissions trading system (ETS) and by pushing EU countries to increase the price for emissions not covered by the ETS through a reform of the Energy Taxation Directive.

These two policy actions should be prioritised in the context of the European Green Deal, as they are the only ones that could contribute to the elimination of the ‘hidden subsidies’ Europe still grants every year to fossil fuels. This is the first real step that should be taken to seriously pursue the 2050 climate neutrality path.

The author is grateful to Ian Parry and Georg Zachmann for useful comments.

 

Table 1. EU post-tax subsidies to fossil fuels, 2015 (USD billions)

Gasoline Diesel Natural gas Coal Total
Austria 0 2 0 1 3
Belgium 1 3 2 1 7
Bulgaria 0 1 0 4 5
Croatia 0 0 0 1 1
Cyprus 0 0 0 0 0
Czech Republic 0 1 1 11 14
Denmark 2 3 0 0 6
Estonia 0 0 0 0 0
Finland 0 1 0 1 2
France 4 24 4 3 35
Germany 5 20 7 39 72
Greece 0 1 0 3 4
Hungary 0 1 1 2 4
Ireland 1 2 1 0 3
Italy 0 3 7 4 14
Latvia 0 0 0 0 0
Lithuania 0 1 0 0 1
Luxembourg 0 2 0 0 2
Malta 0 0 0 0 0
Netherlands 1 3 3 3 10
Poland 1 2 2 24 29
Portugal 0 1 1 1 2
Romania 0 1 1 8 10
Slovak Republic 0 0 1 1 2
Slovenia 0 0 0 1 1
Spain 3 15 3 4 25
Sweden 2 2 0 1 5
TOTAL EU 22 89 37 113 261

Source: Bruegel elaboration on IMF, Energy Subsidies Template, 2019


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

How to extend carbon pricing beyond the comfort zone

Rapid emission cuts need a carbon price for the whole economy. This must be introduced in careful stages. 

By: Georg Zachmann Topic: Energy & Climate Date: April 1, 2021
Read article Download PDF More on this topic
 

Policy Contribution

Navigating through hydrogen

Policymakers must address the need to displace carbon-intensive hydrogen with low-carbon hydrogen, and incentivise the uptake of hydrogen as a means to decarbonise sectors with hard-to-reduce emissions.

By: Ben McWilliams and Georg Zachmann Topic: Energy & Climate Date: April 1, 2021
Read article More on this topic
 

External Publication

Form a climate club: United States, European Union and China

If the three biggest economies agree a carbon tax on imports, it will catalyse climate action globally.

By: Guntram B. Wolff and Simone Tagliapietra Topic: Energy & Climate Date: March 23, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

Central banks don’t have to pick winners and losers to fight climate change

Disclosures and financial regulation don’t get enough respect as tools to reduce emissions.

By: Rebecca Christie Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: March 11, 2021
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

A new carbon pricing paradigm for the path to net zero

Which role carbon pricing could and should play in the future policy mix?

Speakers: Ottmar Edenhofer, Peter Liese, Sam Van den Plas, Beatriz Yordi Aguirre and Georg Zachmann Topic: Energy & Climate Date: March 9, 2021
Read article Download PDF More on this topic
 

Policy Contribution

A whole-economy carbon price for Europe and how to get there

Putting carbon pricing at the centre of the EU climate policy architecture would provide major benefits. Obtaining these benefits requires a uniform, credible and durable carbon price – the economic first-best solution, however, several preconditions required to attain this solution are not yet met. This paper proposes a sequenced approach to ensure convergence of the policy mix on the first-best in the long run.

By: Ottmar Edenhofer, Mirjam Kosch, Michael Pahle and Georg Zachmann Topic: Energy & Climate Date: March 9, 2021
Read article
 

Opinion

The EU can’t separate climate policy from foreign policy

How to make the European Green Deal succeed.

By: Mark Leonard, Jean Pisani-Ferry, Jeremy Shapiro, Simone Tagliapietra and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Energy & Climate, Global Economics & Governance Date: March 5, 2021
Read article More on this topic
 

Opinion

欧洲如何实现碳中和?一种建议

“欧洲绿色协议”目前缺少的一个工具是碳底价,它可以为ETS和非ETS部门设定最低碳定价。经过多年的讨论,现在可能已经到了引入这一制度的时候了。

By: Maria Demertzis and Simone Tagliapietra Topic: Energy & Climate Date: March 5, 2021
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

Carbon price floors: an addition to the European Green Deal arsenal

As the European Union sets out a more ambitious climate policy, carbon price floors provide an opportunity to place greater emphasis on altering expectations, so that market agents anticipate today higher future pay-offs from low-carbon investment.

By: Maria Demertzis and Simone Tagliapietra Topic: Energy & Climate Date: March 3, 2021
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

The economics of biodiversity

Join us in conversation with Sir Partha Dasgupta and Frans Timmermans to mark the publication of The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review

Speakers: Sir Partha Dasgupta, Maria Demertzis, Frans Timmermans and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Energy & Climate Date: March 3, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Podcast

Podcast

Can central banks save the planet?

“We are not going to lead our society to a low-carbon economy by continuing to finance the status quo. “

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Energy & Climate Date: February 24, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

A brown or a green European Central Bank?

The European Central Bank portfolio is skewed towards the brown economy, reflecting a bias in the market. Can and should the bank deviate from the market allocation?

By: Dirk Schoenmaker Topic: Energy & Climate Date: February 24, 2021
Load more posts