Research press release





今回、Jessica Jewellたちの研究グループは5つの統合評価モデル(IAM)を用いて、化石燃料補助金の撤廃が二酸化炭素排出量とエネルギー需要に及ぼす全球的、地域的影響を評価した。その結果、3つの石油・ガス輸出地域(中東・北アフリカ、ロシア、ラテンアメリカ)で、2015年の全世界の化石燃料補助金の約3分の2を占めていることが判明した。また、開発途上国と新興国(インド、中国、その他のアジア諸国とアフリカ)の現在の補助金は、化石燃料輸出国より低額だが、将来的には伸び率が上昇する可能性のあることも明らかになった。補助金改革が行われない場合には、インドでの補助金が2030年にラテンアメリカとロシアでの補助金と肩を並べる可能性がある。


Ending fossil fuel subsidies would have a relatively small impact on global energy demand and carbon dioxide emissions and would not increase renewable energy use by 2030, according to a modelling study published in this week’s Nature. The results show that terminating subsidies would reduce emissions in fossil fuel exporting countries. However, in most regions it would deliver smaller emission reductions than required by Paris Agreement climate pledges, and in some regions might lead to increased emissions.

In 2016,the G20 countries reaffirmed their 2009 commitment to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, hoping that this would have a significant role in mitigating climate change by discouraging inefficient energy consumption and levelling the playing field for renewables. Despite these goals, it is unknown whether removing such subsidies - even worldwide - would substantially affect climate change mitigation.

Jessica Jewell and colleagues used five Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) to evaluate the global and regional effects of removing fossil fuel subsidies on emissions and energy demands. They find that the three oil- and gas-exporting regions - the Middle East and North Africa, Russia and Latin America - accounted for about two-thirds of all fossil fuel subsidies worldwide in 2015. Developing and emerging economies (India, China, the rest of Asia and Africa) currently have lower subsidies than the fossil fuel exporters, but their subsidies may grow faster in the future. Without reform, subsidies in India could become comparable to those in Latin America and Russia by 2030.

The authors conclude that subsidy removal would result in the largest CO2 emission reductions in high-income oil- and gas-exporting regions where the reductions would exceed the climate pledges of these regions and where subsidy removal would affect fewer people living below the poverty line than in lower-income regions. However, a global subsidy removal programme could produce increased emissions in regions such as India and Africa, where oil and natural gas would probably be substituted for more carbon-intensive coal.

doi: 10.1038/nature25467

「Nature 関連誌注目のハイライト」は、ネイチャー広報部門が報道関係者向けに作成したリリースを翻訳したものです。より正確かつ詳細な情報が必要な場合には、必ず原著論文をご覧ください。

メールマガジンリストの「Nature 関連誌今週のハイライト」にチェックをいれていただきますと、毎週最新のNature 関連誌のハイライトを皆様にお届けいたします。