• About
    • Which Energy Mix is this?
  • Climate News Network Archive
  • Contact
The climate news that makes a difference.
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
No Result
View All Result
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
  FEATURED
Wind and Solar Cheaper than Gas Plants in Ontario and Alberta, Study Shows February 7, 2023
AI Predicts World Over 1.5°C Limit by 2030, Undercuts Climate Progress Reports February 7, 2023
February Brings Record Cold, Widespread Power Outages to Much of North America February 7, 2023
Solar Geoengineering Banned in Mexico After ‘Rogue’ Stunt February 7, 2023
Lithium Mine Divides Nemaska Cree Over Impacts, Benefits February 7, 2023
Next
Prev

Global Climate Finance: Time to Cut Fossil Subsidies, Boost Climate Resilience

July 16, 2017
Reading time: 3 minutes

Lindsey G/Wikimedia Commons

Lindsey G/Wikimedia Commons

 

To untangle the complexities of the climate finance commitments in the Paris agreement, it helps to think about salad and ice cream, Rocky Mountain Institute Senior Associate Caroline Ott suggests in a recent blog post.

“In layman’s terms, the Paris agreement commits countries to ramp up finance for climate-friendly activities, while also scaling back finance for activities that stand in the way of climate objectives,” Ott explains. “Most of the attention has focused on the first task,” with a series of efforts to track the $100 billion per year by 2020 that developed countries were to commit to international finance efforts. But “shouldn’t we also be reporting on ‘anti-climate’ or ‘climate negative’ finance?” she asks.

  • The climate news you need. Subscribe now to our engaging new weekly digest.
  • You’ll receive exclusive, never-before-seen-content, distilled and delivered to your inbox every weekend.
  • The Weekender: Succinct, solutions-focused, and designed with the discerning reader in mind.
Subscribe

That part of the picture came into focus in May when RMI, the World Resources Institute, and Climate Analytics reported “that while climate finance may be growing, net climate finance continues to be heavily skewed toward dirty investments,” Ott writes. Based on International Energy Agency figures, the organizations reported that fossil fuels received US$1.1 trillion in investment in 2013, compared to only $250 billion for renewable energy and $130 billion for energy efficiency.

“This ratio becomes even more dramatic when looking only at public finance,” she notes. “The IEA estimates $513 billion in fossil fuel subsides in 2013, compared with just $129 billion for renewables.”

Oil Change International and three partner organizations reached a similar conclusion earlier this month, reporting that the G20 lavished $71.8 billion per year on fossil projects between 2013 and 2015, four times the amount they invested in renewable energy.

“Imagine you’re on a diet—but to measure progress, you decide to count only the number of salads you’re eating while ignoring the number of ice creams,” Ott comments. “That, in a nutshell, is what has happened in global discussions on climate finance.”

But if the White House has its way, international climate finance won’t be shifting from desserts to greens anytime soon. Instead, the U.S. hopes to use its seat at the decision-making table for the United Nations Green Climate Fund “to promote the construction of coal-fired power plants around the world,” Bloomberg reports.

The U.S. has contributed $1 billion to the GCF, just a fraction of the $3 billion originally pledged by President Barack Obama. But the initial contribution will give the Trump administration a voice on the GCF’s governing board for at least another year. “Board members previously refused to impose an explicit ban on funding projects that use fossil fuels,” Bloomberg notes. And now, “the U.S. wants to encourage developing countries to build high-efficiency plants that produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions than earlier facilities and construct ‘clean coal’ plants that employ carbon capture technology to strip out even more,” correspondent Jennifer A. Dlouhy reports, citing an unnamed White House source.

But rejecting the GCF and its original purpose is precisely the wrong way to put America First, argue Matthew Kotchen and Leonardo Martinez-Diaz, who represented the U.S. on the GCF governing board from 2013 to 2017. “The reality is that investments in the GCF advance the strategic interests of the United States,” they write on Yale Environment 360.

“The starting point for understanding that is recognizing how climate change is a threat multiplier and risk magnifier. Scientific evidence already points to climate change increasing water stress, sea level rise, storm frequency and severity, threats to human health, food insecurity, and violent conflict. And it has become clear that as these impacts grow more severe, they will hit hardest in regions where people are poor and least able to adapt.”

Through that lens, helping countries build climate resilience “is not only compelling from moral and humanitarian perspectives. It also protects national borders and regional stability in one of the world’s most complex regions. And from the U.S. perspective, it is especially important because of our significant interests overseas and our role in shouldering a large share of the costs when international disasters occur.”



in Climate Impacts & Adaptation, Community Climate Finance, COP Conferences, Energy Subsidies, Environmental Justice, International Agencies & Studies, International Security & War

The latest climate news and analysis, direct to your inbox

Subscribe

Related Posts

Peoplepoweredbyenergy/Wikimedia Commons
Ending Emissions

Wind and Solar Cheaper than Gas Plants in Ontario and Alberta, Study Shows

February 7, 2023
193
The hottest summer days in a typical New York City year are now about 11 times more frequent than in the 19th century. Image: Andreas Komodromos via Flickr
Carbon Levels & Measurement

AI Predicts World Over 1.5°C Limit by 2030, Undercuts Climate Progress Reports

February 7, 2023
58
Andre Carrotflower/wikimedia commons
Severe Storms & Flooding

February Brings Record Cold, Widespread Power Outages to Much of North America

February 7, 2023
30

Comments 1

  1. Richard Prest says:
    5 years ago

    this is the problem right here, subsidies for fossil fuels 1.1 Trillion dollars, Renewable s 250 Billion, energy efficiency 129 Billion. So we need to go after their funding, and tax payers have to press their governments to suspend taxpayers funded subsidies. Our governments thinks that we surrendered our rights to them so they can do whatever they want, tell them that this is a consensual agreement with government, and our voting rights is not an after thought. Canada subsidizes the Fossil industries with 3.3 Billion $$$$ of our tax money, and who knows what else that we don’t know about.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Trending Stories

Peoplepoweredbyenergy/Wikimedia Commons

Wind and Solar Cheaper than Gas Plants in Ontario and Alberta, Study Shows

February 7, 2023
193
Beckyq6937/Wikimedia Commons

Solar Geoengineering Banned in Mexico After ‘Rogue’ Stunt

February 7, 2023
89
Michael E. Brunk/flickr

Green Building ‘Heroes’, Climate Contrarian ‘Zombies’, Shell Lawsuits, and ‘Sponge Cities’ to Solve Flooding

February 7, 2023
73
Peter Broster/wikimedia commons

Ottawa Mulls Higher-Speed Trains on Busy Toronto-Quebec City Corridor

February 7, 2023
59
The hottest summer days in a typical New York City year are now about 11 times more frequent than in the 19th century. Image: Andreas Komodromos via Flickr

AI Predicts World Over 1.5°C Limit by 2030, Undercuts Climate Progress Reports

February 7, 2023
58
Brian Robert Marshall/Geograph

Canada’s Solid Renewables Growth Falls Short of Net-Zero Ambitions

February 7, 2023
56

Recent Posts

Andre Carrotflower/wikimedia commons

February Brings Record Cold, Widespread Power Outages to Much of North America

February 7, 2023
30
Nemaska Lithium/Facebook

Lithium Mine Divides Nemaska Cree Over Impacts, Benefits

February 7, 2023
19
Mike Mozart/Flickr

BP Predicts Faster Oil and Gas Decline as Clean Energy Spending Hits $1.1T in 2022

February 4, 2023
354
Gina Dittmer/PublicDomainPictures

Canada Needs Oil and Gas Emissions Cap to Hit 2030 Goal: NZAB

January 31, 2023
208
CONFENIAE

Ecuador’s Amazon Drilling Plan Shows Need for Fossil Non-Proliferation Treaty

January 31, 2023
82
Ken Teegardin www.SeniorLiving.Org/flickr

Virtual Power Plants Hit an ‘Inflection Point’

January 31, 2023
138
Next Post
Laurseum / Pixabay

Perry May Alter Report That Counters His Views on Grid Reliability

The Energy Mix - The climate news you need

Copyright 2023 © Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

  • About
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy and Copyright
  • Cookie Policy

Proudly partnering with…

scf_withtagline
No Result
View All Result
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities

Copyright 2022 © Smarter Shift Inc. and Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}