International efforts to mobilise private capital for low-carbon development coexist with widespread government support for fossil fuels in economies accounting for a large majority of global energy supply. By lowering the cost of producing or consuming fossil energy, this support alters relative returns in favour of carbon-intensive activities. This article assesses the implications of this distortion for implementing Article 2.1(c) of the Paris Agreement, which calls for finance flows to be made consistent with low-emission and climate-resilient development. It argues that fossil-fuel-subsidy reform is therefore not solely a fiscal or energy-policy issue but also a matter of policy coherence in implementing this finance-alignment objective. The evidence reviewed also shows that, in most cases, broad price support is poorly targeted and regressive in distribution: higher-income households obtain larger absolute benefits because they consume more energy. Against this background, the article develops a three-part litmus test for COP31: progressive reform of fossil-fuel support to strengthen policy coherence under Article 2.1(c), transparent disclosure that permits progress to be tracked over time and protection of vulnerable households as part of a just transition. To operationalise these tests, the article proposes that Parties agree at COP31 to prepare nationally determined fossil-fuel-subsidy reform plans, modelled on the Paris Agreement’s nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and submitted alongside successive NDCs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Haluk Haksal (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: