At G-7 Summit, World Leaders Must Commit to Increasing Climate Finance for Developing Countries
Courtesy of Union Of Concerned Scientists
By Rachel Cleetus
The G-7 Leaders’ Summit is underway, from June 11–13, in Cornwall, UK. As host nation for this summit, and the annual climate talks later this year (also known as COP26), the UK will clearly be elevating the need for climate action, alongside dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic and trade issues. One priority that must get urgent attention: richer nations need to make concrete commitments to increasing climate finance for developing countries. Here in the US, 48 groups, including the Union of Concerned Scientists, have just sent a letter to Congress calling for increased funding for climate finance in the federal budget.
President Biden. Image courtesy of White House, via Union of Concerned Scientists
The G7 Leaders’ Summit must prioritize climate finance
At the summit, the leaders of the G-7 countries — the UK, USA, Canada, Japan, Germany, France and Italy, and the EU — will be joined by guest nations Australia, India, South Korea, and South Africa. Tackling climate change is one of the four policy priorities on the agenda.
Ahead of the Leaders’ Summit, the finance ministers of the G-7 nations met last week. The highlight of that meeting was the announcement of a commitment to a global minimum tax rate of 15 percent for major corporations. In a statement, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said: “That global minimum tax would end the race-to-the-bottom in corporate taxation, and ensure fairness for the middle class and working people in the US and around the world.”
However, in terms of climate outcomes, the Finance Ministers’ Communique was disappointing. There were vague mentions of commitments to achieving net-zero emissions by mid-century and no major new financial commitments for clean energy investments or adaptation needs in developing countries, raising the stakes for more concrete actions at the Leader’s Summit and ahead of COP26.
On international climate finance, specifically, the text stated:
“We commit to increase and improve our climate finance contributions through to 2025, including increasing adaptation finance and finance for nature-based solutions. We welcome the commitments already made by some G7 countries to increase climate finance. We look forward to further commitments at the G7 Leaders’ Summit or ahead of COP26. We call on all the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) to set ambitious dates for Paris Alignment ahead of COP26, and welcome their work supporting client countries.”
The unfair and worsening toll of climate impacts
Worldwide, climate impacts are unfolding in terrifying and costly ways. Worsening heat waves, floods, droughts, tropical storms and wildfires are taking a mounting toll on communities and economies.
Last month, for example, the unusually intense Cyclone Tauktae struck the coast of Gujarat in India, after traveling up the western coast causing heavy rainfall and floods. The cyclone took the lives of over 100 people, including 86 at an offshore oil and gas facility. Tauktae was the fifth strongest Arabian Sea cyclone on record, with peak winds of 140 mph, and tied for the strongest Arabian Sea landfalling cyclone. This latest storm is part of a trend toward increasingly frequent and powerful storms in the Arabian Sea that scientists have attributed to climate change, and that is expected to worsen.
And in a new ground-breaking study, researchers found that across 43 countries, 37 percent of summer heat-related deaths can be attributed to human-caused climate change. In several countries, including the Philippines, Thailand, Iran, Brazil, Peru, and Colombia, the proportion was greater than 50 percent.
The bottom line is that many developing countries that have contributed very little to the emissions that are fueling climate change are bearing the brunt of its impacts. Richer nations, like the United States, which are responsible for the vast majority of cumulative carbon emissions to date, must take responsibility for the harm being inflicted on poorer nations.
Climate finance is also desperately needed for developing countries to make a low-carbon transition. To have a fighting chance of limiting some of the worst climate impacts, the world will have to cut heat-trapping emissions in half by 2030 and achieve net-zero emissions no later than 2050. The recent IEA net-zero by 2050 report points out that this is both feasible and affordable — as long as we make proactive, intentional investments in clean energy and curtail fossil fuels now, globally. That includes investments in decarbonizing every sector of the global energy system. It also means providing electricity to the 785 million people who currently do not have access, and clean cooking solutions to the 2.6 billion people who need them, most of whom live in developing countries — two priorities which the IEA estimates could be achieved by 2030 at a cost of about $40 billion a year and would deliver tremendous public health and economic benefits.
The necessary scale of international climate finance
In 2009, at the annual climate talks in Copenhagen, richer nations pledged to raise $100 billion a year to help developing countries cut their carbon emissions and adapt to climate change. Over ten years later, they have fallen woefully short.
The UNEP Adaptation Gap Report 2020, points out that “Annual adaptation costs in developing countries alone are currently estimated to be in the range of US$70 billion, with the expectation of reaching US$140–300 billion in 2030 and US$280–500 billion in 2050.”
Here in the US, the Biden administration and Congress must step up and ensure that this year’s federal budget includes a significant down payment on a US fair share contribution to climate finance, ahead of COP26. Forty eight groups, including the Union of Concerned Scientists, have just sent a letter to Congress, calling for a Fiscal Year 2022 allocation of at least $69.1 billion to support critical development goals and dedicating at least $3.3 billion of that for direct climate change programs as a step towards significantly increased international climate finance.
This is a minimum threshold, and a lot more will be needed in the years to come, including concrete steps from richer countries to recognize and respond to those crushing impacts of climate change that poorer nations simply will not be able to adapt to.
Sharp cuts in carbon emissions needed
Sharp cuts in global carbon emissions remain a core priority, especially with the latest data confirming — again — that we are far off track from where we need to be. While the 2020 economic downturn led to a brief dip in emissions, they are set to rise at a record-setting pace in 2021. Here too, richer nations must do much more. The Biden administration has made a significant commitment, pledging to cut US emissions 50–52% below 2005 levels by 2030, and we must now secure the domestic policies to deliver on that goal, starting with the American Jobs Plan.
An unconscionable gap between the rich and the poor
The gap in climate finance for developing countries is unconscionable. This mirrors the inequity in global vaccine availability, with richer nations stockpiling billions of surplus vaccine doses even as many countries have barely received any. With the climate crisis compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting economic crisis, millions of lives are at risk and many more are being driven into poverty.
Just as with the COVID-19 crisis, solving the climate crisis will require collective global action. Equity is at the heart of ensuring the success of our efforts. Richer nations must both make sharp cuts in their own global warming emissions and contribute to climate finance for developing countries.
Environment
Clean energy sector looks to create even more jobs after the election — regardless of who wins
As presidential nominees Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump prepare to face off in their first debate Tuesday night, voters will be tuning in for clarity on their plans to handle issues including the economy, inflation and job growth.
One sector that faces particular uncertainty after the election is clean energy, which has received a boost from the Biden administration but faced skepticism from Trump.
Climate change and a move toward more sustainable energy have bolstered job growth in the sector in recent years, thanks in part to funding from the Inflation Reduction Act and the Chips and Science Act. Recent data from the Department of Energy showed clean energy employment increased by 142,000 jobs last year, accounting for more than half of new energy-sector jobs.
The rate was more than double the growth for the rest of the energy sector and the overall U.S. economy, according to the newly released 2024 U.S. Energy and Employment Report.
Since the implementation of the IRA and the CHIPS and Science Act, there’s been more “long-term certainty” for jobs related to energy efficiency, renewables and climate resilience, the nonprofit Environmental and Energy Study Institute said. The IRA is projected to generate more than 300,000 jobs annually for new energy project construction and about 100,000 permanent jobs each year, according to the EESI.
While job growth in the sector faces uncertainty after the election, industry watchers say the future of energy production and consumption is always changing.
“Energy systems have been in transition for decades — it’s always in transition, it’s always in a state of flux,” Daniel Bresette, president of EESI, said of the upcoming election’s impact.
Ameresco, which integrates clean tech and develops, owns and operates renewable energy projects, is forging ahead with hiring plans regardless of the election’s outcome. It will increase its hiring by 300 workers in the U.S. and Europe this year, in positions ranging from engineers to project managers, developers, analysts and more. Ameresco provides efficient energy solutions for clients that range from federal and state governments to colleges and hospitals.
“Everyone needs energy no matter what, regardless of who is in the White House. So the driver is going to be increasing that need for more secure energy sources, for cheaper energy sources and for cleaner energy sources,” said Nicole Bulgarino, executive vice president and general manager of federal and utility solutions at Ameresco.
The company is also looking to Gen Z to fill the jobs, as fewer applicants are coming up through trade and vocational schools and younger workers have shown an interest in climate-friendly opportunities. Ameresco, which offers tuition reimbursement and mentorship programs, said it has had success in recruiting recent college grads and investing in their training.
Caroline Leilani Stevenson, a 22-year-old associate electrical engineer at Ameresco, is part of the Gen Z hiring push. Stevenson interned with Ameresco and came back full-time after graduation, working today on projects with the Department of Defense.
She was able to work on a solar project in Honolulu, which was particularly meaningful, as she grew up on Maui. Like others in her generation, she found the idea of working toward more sustainable energy solutions appealing.
“I wanted to make an impact and build something really big,” she said. “The energy needs of a large naval base are not the same as a small elementary school and the suburbs of New York or the energy usage of a hospital are not the same as a large data center … It’s great to be able to design something for a specific site and make a difference in that way. Being able to see and know that the power from these lines is going somewhere and it’s eventually going to improve life at large.”
As Harris and Trump prepare to debate their policies, neither candidate has put forth a comprehensive plan on energy and climate change so far, leading to uncertainty for the sector. But their experiences in the White House can help to inform possible paths.
Harris was a key part of implementing the Inflation Reduction Act, as she cast the tiebreaking vote to pass the bill as vice president to President Joe Biden. She also backed the Green New Deal while serving in the Senate but has walked back some of her earlier stances that veered further to the progressive left. Harris also said during an interview with CNN that she would not ban fracking, a position she’d taken in her previous bid for the White House.
Trump meanwhile has promised to make energy cheaper and focused on drilling for oil in the U.S. He also rolled back major climate policies and has said he would rescind the IRA’s unspent dollars if elected. He called the Green New Deal the “Green New Scam” at an event at the Economic Club of New York last week.
One thing is for sure: Industry analysts are projecting the need for energy to increase significantly, regardless of November’s outcome.
“There [is] lots and lots of new, especially in the electricity space, lots of new demand, [from] the transportation sector, electrification, data centers, artificial intelligence. All of that adds up to a lot of electricity demand,” said Bresette. “It is almost difficult to imagine how much more energy we’re going to need in the future.”
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports5 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports11 months agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Environment1 year agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Environment1 year agoTesla advances Powerwall pilot project with German electric company