Michael Froman, deputy national security adviser and top G20 aide to President Barack Obama, said the United States was hoping to reach an agreement about the issue at the Pittsburgh summit on Thursday and Friday.
“We’ve put on the table the desirability of reaching an agreement to phase out fossil fuel subsidies,” Froman told reporters in remarks embargoed for release on Wednesday.
“We’re working with the rest of the G20 to see if we can forge an agreement that would make a significant contribution in that direction.”
Froman declined to flesh out the U.S. ideas by including a timeframe or identifying which countries were targeted.
A source familiar with the proposal said earlier this month it would seek to phase out subsidies in five years.
The proposal - which could rankle G20 states with big fuel subsidies like China, Russia, and India - argues non-G20 members should end subsidies by 2020, the source said.
Froman laid out the U.S. case in broad terms, saying lower consumption of fossil fuels that results from eliminating subsidies would help combat climate change, heighten energy security, improve health and the environment, boost economic growth, and assist the poor.
Citing estimates by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the International Energy Agency, Froman said phasing out fossil fuel subsidies worldwide would cut greenhouse gases by up to 12 percent by 2050.
In his speech to a U.N. climate summit on Tuesday, Obama said he planned to work with his G20 counterparts this week to phase out the subsidies.
Indonesia, which was considered a “success story” in phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, had agreed to open the discussion among G20 leaders, a U.S. official said.
Froman said the United States encouraged subsidies and support schemes for renewable energy.
The United States is also seeking G20 support for boosting transparency in oil markets.
“G-20 Leaders should commit to improving energy security by increasing oil market transparency, including by reporting comprehensive data on domestic oil markets,” Froman wrote in a letter, obtained by Reuters, to G20 colleagues.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article