"The G7 joins the leaders of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the World Bank, who have previously called for an end to assistance for fossil fuel projects. The statement did not define precisely what the G7 consider to be a subsidy. The word 'inefficient' in the G7 text indicates subsidies that distort energy markets. The OECD estimates that this type of support for fossil fuels within its member states is $160-200bn (£109-136bn) each year. But when the cost of damage from pollution and climate change is factored in, the International Monetary Fund has estimated that support increases to a staggering $5.3tn a year, or $10m per minute. This is more than the total global spend on human health," Karl Mathiesen writes for the Guardian.
"Every day, nearly 100 million barrels of oil are used around the world. In 2014, fossil fuels still accounted for 85% of our global energy consumption. But the volatility in oil prices and the devastating impact of carbon dioxide emissions on climate change and pollution have made us rethink our strategy towards greener technologies. The economics of renewables are supporting this dramatic energy transition. In the last five years, solar prices have plunged about 75%, while wind energy has become 25% cheaper. While enough sun falls on the surface of the earth in one hour to power the entire planet for one year, storing energy at night remains a technological challenge," Caroline Connan writes for Bloomberg.
"Subsidizing fossil fuels may make your constituents happy in the short run, but it is wasteful and polluting in the long run. With oil prices at their lowest levels in more than a decade, however, governments worldwide have a huge opportunity. Now is the perfect time to scale back subsidies on fossil fuels," writes Bjorn Lomborg for the Boston Globe.