In 2014, nearly 30 countries cut down on their fossil fuel subsidies. In countries like Egypt, Indonesia and India, low oil prices have dampened the political cost of implementing these reforms, which have usually been met with public protests.

Fossil fuel subsidy reforms have often been referred to as the low-hanging fruit in the fight against climate change. A new report by the Nordic Council of Ministers and the Global Subsidy Initiative finds that the removal of subsidies on the consumption of fossil fuels could reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by between 6 to 13 percent.

Still, countries worldwide subsidize the consumption and production of fossil fuels on a massive scale (with estimates of the total costs varying widely depending on differences in the estimation method).

In many Asian countries, fossil fuel subsidies can make up as much as 30 percent of government spending. European Union member countries like Germany and Poland, still subsidize the production of coal while at the same time investing in renewable energy.

In the face of the possible dangers of climate change and the obvious government savings from reforming subsidies, subsidizing fossil fuels while at the same time investing in alternative energies seems a dangerous fallacy.

But the politics of fossil fuel subsidy reforms is challenging even with low oil prices. Though, a large number of countries successfully implemented reforms over the past months, they still have to weather future price increases.

Will the population in those reforming countries be willing to put up with higher fuel prices in the future? And have the reformers implemented enough safety nets in order to cushion off the impacts on the poor once the prices start to rise again?

Another question is whether the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions will be that significant. Even if these reforming countries weather future price rises, a significant reduction in the consumption of fossil-fuel-based energy only happens if there are alternative, affordable energy sources for a large part of the population.

Demand for oil and gas is relatively inelastic with respect to price, which means that even if people are trying to consume less as prices rise, they might not reduce their consumption significantly. Given that reformers' fiscal savings increase, it would be therefore important that they reinvest part of their savings into renewables.

What does this mean for the U.S. and the oil and gas industry at large?

Certainly, recent reformers are setting precedents not only for developing and emerging market economies but also other subsidizers across the globe. They show how difficult reforms are from a political economy perspective, although the type of fossil fuel subsidies in the U.S. is still quite different (as most of the support comes in the form of producer subsidies).

But the recent reforms are also important for industry investors. As mentioned — these reforms are not necessarily finals — once prices rise, one could expect popular upheavals in many of these countries including Egypt, which recently passed an ambitious set of fuel-market reforms signing 15 new exploration deals.