Why fossil fuel producer subsidies matter

Matters Arising to this article was published on 05 February 2020

The Original Article was published on 08 February 2018

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

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.


  1. 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. 2.

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

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 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).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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. 5.

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

  6. 6.

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

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

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

  8. 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. 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. 10.

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

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 18.

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

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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. 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


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




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

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

Further reading


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing