Decarbonising states as owners

Figures & data

Figure 1. Different aspects of the governance of the environmental state. The distance of states to markets decreases from left to right.

Table 1. Different ideal-typical state carbon capital decarbonisation strategies.

Decarbonisation strategy	Feasibility	Effectiveness	Example
Divestment	Easy	Low	GPF-G (Norway)
Redirecting	Possible	Medium	Ørsted (Denmark)
Phase-out	Difficult	High	Engie (France)

Table 2. Top 10 states as fossil-fuel hosts and owners.

Host state	Carbon state capital (in USD)	Percentage of total
China	1.5 tn.	47.6
Saudi Arabia	230 bn.	7.2
Kuwait	155 bn.	4.9
India	130 bn.	4.1
Russia	107 bn.	3.3
France	99 bn.	3.1
Germany	82 bn.	2.6
Mexico	74 bn.	2.3
Azerbaijan	66 bn.	2.1
Myanmar	63 bn.	2
Sender state
China	1.5 tn.	47.6
Saudi Arabia	230 bn.	7.2
Kuwait	183 bn.	5.7
Norway	141 bn.	4.4
India	125 bn.	3.9
Russia	92 bn.	2.9
France	91 bn.	2.8
Mexico	73 bn.	2.3
Azerbaijan	66 bn.	2.1
Myanmar	63 bn.	2

Note: Differences between both lists in italics.

Table 3. Top 10 states as transnational carbon state capital hosts and owners.

Host state	Carbon state capital (in USD)	Percentage of total
Germany	44 bn.	21.8
United Kingdom	40 bn.	19.7
United States	28 bn.	13.9
Russia	17 bn.	8.5
Japan	15 bn.	7.5
France	8.2 bn.	4.1
China	7.4 bn.	3.7
South Korea	4.7 bn.	2.4
India	4.7 bn.	2.4
Netherlands	3.5 bn.	1.8
Sender state
Norway	103 bn.	51.3
Kuwait	28 bn.	14
Qatar	15 bn.	7.6
Singapore	12 bn.	5.7
Canada	9.4 bn.	4.7
China	6.9 bn.	3.4
Sweden	6.7 bn.	3.3
South Korea	4.1 bn.	2
United States	3.2 bn.	1.6
Spain	2.7 bn.	1.3

Table 4. Share of carbon state capital invested cross-border.

Sender state	Transnationally invested carbon capital (in %)
Norway	73.4
Kuwait	15.3
Qatar	25.5
Singapore	100
Canada	67.3
China	0.5
Sweden	58.5
South Korea	10.3
United States	13.6
Spain	80

Note: Ranked by top 10 of total outwards investment (see Table 2).

Table 5. Investment profiles of the top 10 states as fossil owners.

Sender state	Portfolio (financial profile)	10–50% of shares (mixed profile)	Majority (control profile)	Portfolio ratio (log. scale)
China	1.14	2.08	96.78	−4.5
Saudi Arabia	0.12	0.1	99.78	−6.7
Kuwait	15.38	0	84.62	−1.7
Norway	74.82	3.31	21.87	1.1
India	10.57	3.21	86.22	−2.1
Russia	0.78	79.66	19.56	−4.8
France	0.5	99.46	0.04	−5.3
Mexico	0	33.79	66.21	∞
Azerbaijan	0	0	100	∞
Myanmar	1.03	1.92	97.05	−4.6

Note: Numbers in inner three columns in percent (row-wise). A (logarithmic) portfolio ratio of zero means perfect balance between both investment profiles. A negative ratio means more investment beyond portfolio, a positive ratio means more portfolio than other investment.

Figure 2. Relation between total carbon state ownership (y-axis) and the ration between this ownership and GDP (x-axis). Both axes are logarithmic for representational reasons.

Figure 3. Analytical heuristic for analysing state decarbonisation strategies.

Table 6. Possible interplay of state ownership with other environmental state dimensions.

Environmental state dimension	Corresponding decarbonisation strategies	Possible tools in combination with state ownership	Type of ownership
Regulation	Divestment	Changing mandates for SOEs/SWFs	Portfolio and controlling
Incentivising	Divestment; Redirection	State-led infrastructure building; de-risking	Portfolio and controlling
Intervention	Redirection; Phase-Out	Picking of/investment in ‘green champions’; state shareholder activism (e.g. via golden shares)	Mainly controlling