These countries are also committed (or so they say) to reducing the CO2 emissions these fuels produce, emissions which - at current rates - by 2024 will have us face a one-in-four chance that global temperatures will rise by more than the ''safe'' 2degC, a gamble that rises to 50:50 by 2033.
To use Prof Gerry Carrington's analogy from last week's column, world governments are promising to apply the brakes to our emissions of CO2 but all the while have the accelerator pressed right to the floor.
One is bound to ask why we vote for these people, not just for the damage they are doing to our futures, but for their dishonesty.
The ODI points out that there are several reasons why government support for fossil fuels makes no sense.
It raises the risks of potentially catastrophic climate change.
Subsidies are also diverting funds away from investment in the renewable sources of energy that must replace fossil fuel sources, and soon.
Most senseless of all, the world already has proven reserves of oil and gas three times more than we should ever burn if we are going to limit temperature rise to 2degC, so why should we subsidise a search for more?
The scale of government support at $88 billion eclipses what the largest 20 oil and gas companies spend on exploration ($37 billion) and is also larger than the $67 billion capital expenditures that the biggest 20 coal companies make every year.
Without government support, the scale of investment in these industries would be appreciably less, especially now that world prices for fossil fuels have nose-dived.
While not a member of the G20 club, New Zealand is playing the same game.
A 2013 report by the World Wildlife Fund estimates that New Zealand's support for oil and gas exploration increased nearly eightfold from NZ$6 million in 2009 to $46 million in 2013.
Compared to the huge sums reported for G20 countries, these seem to be small amounts.
However, our support for fossil fuels is disproportionately focused on oil and gas (rather than coal), and on exploration as against extraction and downstream infrastructure.
Our $46 million support for oil and gas exploration is more than G20 countries India, Brazil, Korea and France choose to offer.
And, if we include in our thinking the indirect supports to an oil-burning economy, the biggest support of all is the $3 billion investment being made between 2012 and 2015 in ''roads of national significance''.
Governments around the world find themselves saying one thing about controlling climate change but doing another.
Feel free to get angry and frustrated about that. But it is also a sign of change in the air.
The Roman god of change, Janus, was depicted with two faces: one looking to the future, the other looking backwards to the past.
It is a sign of change that we see governments everywhere locked into support for a dying industry and at the same time recognising that tomorrow's world must be very different.
We should all try to help them get on with it.
• Colin Campbell-Hunt is an emeritus professor in the Otago Business School. Each week in this column, one of a panel of writers addresses issues of sustainability.
The reports
• The ODI's 2014 report can be found at www.odi.org/publications/8678-fossil-fuel-bailout-g20-subsidies-oil-gas-....
• The WWF's 2013 report on New Zealand can be found at www.awsassets.wwfnz.panda.org/downloads/wwf-fossil-fuel-finance-nz-subsi....
