More

U.N. Climate Conference: $100 Billion For Climate Fund In Dispute

ARTHUR MAX   12/ 7/11 12:01 PM ET   AP

DURBAN, South Africa — Even in hard times, fighting climate change is not a luxury but a necessity, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Wednesday, as climate negotiators bickered about how to raise hundreds of billions of dollars to adapt to a warming world.

Creating a body to govern a $100 billion a year fund is a central issue at the 194-nation U.N. climate conference nearing its end in South Africa, but it was unclear whether the final document will mention how the money will be mobilized for the Green Climate Fund.

Ban said Wednesday that while many countries are tightening budgets, contributing money to fight climate change is "an imperative. We have to do it."

A high level advisory group appointed by Ban reported last year that money should flow from governments, private investment and international sources such as a levy on global merchant shipping and aviation.

The fund is earmarked to help poor countries adapt to the severe effects of global warming and to help them reduce emissions in the future. Government leaders approved a $10 billion a year fast-track fund from 2010 to 2012, which is supposed to scale up to $100 billion a year by 2020.

Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, who co-authored last year's report, said the crisis roiling markets around the world underscored the need to vary the sources of funding.

"It is challenging, but it is feasible to mobilize $100 billion by 2020. But we have to do many different things and look for different sources of finance," Stoltenberg said during a panel discussion that included Ban.

Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, who was Stoltenberg's co-chair, said the current state of the global economy is "irrelevant," and the report commissioned by Ban took into account that governments will face financial constraints.

"The proposal was made on the assumption that major countries don't have money in the treasury," he said.

One proposal would put a price on carbon, either a direct tax broadly on emissions of carbon dioxide or a cap on emissions coupled with trading in emissions allowances.

About 90 percent of funds raised by carbon pricing would go to national coffers, and the remaining to the Green Climate Fund, said Nicholas Stern, who wrote a landmark 700-page report in 2006 on the effect of climate change on the global economy.

A draft decision during closed-door debates says funds should be raised by taxing global shipping, and that the levy should be designed by the International Maritime Organization, the London-based U.N. agency that regulates the merchant marine which carries more than 90 percent of world trade.

The United States is opposing the shipping fund in the document, which is due to be adopted when the conference ends Friday.

Reports that the U.S. was seeking to delete that and other financing clauses prompted criticism from Oxfam.

"Right now we need progress not roadblocks," said David Waskow. "The U.S. actions to throw obstacles in the way of any discussion on sources of finance for the Green Climate Fund risks condemning the Fund to kickoff as an empty shell."

The U.S. says public money should be used to leverage investment funds.

"There is a vastly larger pool of private capital in the world that is potentially available if the right kind of mechanism is put in place" to govern the funds, said U.S. climate envoy Todd Stern. "There should be as much public money as there possibly can, there's no doubt about that."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

DURBAN, South Africa — Even in hard times, fighting climate change is not a luxury but a necessity, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Wednesday, as climate negotiators bickered about how t...
DURBAN, South Africa — Even in hard times, fighting climate change is not a luxury but a necessity, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Wednesday, as climate negotiators bickered about how t...
Filed by James Gerken  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 65
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
02:34 PM on 12/08/2011
Certain bloggers on this comment thread would have us believe that the Earth’s climate is not changing and, even if it is, it’s all due to natural causes.

The disappearing Arctic sea ice did not get the memo.

The melting Greenland ice sheet did not get the memo.

Melting alpine glaciers did not get the memo.

The warming troposphere did not get the memo.

The melting permafrost in Canada, Alaska, and Siberia did not get the memo.

The northward migrating pine bark beetles in North America did not get the memo.

These are just a few of the numerous other lines of evidence corroborating the reality of manmade climate change that are being documented and experienced on a daily basis by scientists and ordinary people throughout the world.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
SallyMaclennane
The Audacity of Hype.
12:12 PM on 12/08/2011
I'll volunteer to manage the fund....and I'll only charge a 0.1% management fee.
07:30 AM on 12/08/2011
Sen. Inhofe's video to the conference is priceless. "You're being ignored by Obama and the Dem leadership.".
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
11:46 PM on 12/07/2011
Who was that guy who said the whole AGW thing was a socialist wealth redistribution scheme?
PM Harper?
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
11:45 PM on 12/07/2011
Is this the Onion?
We are supposed to give the corrupt thieves at the UN 100 billion a year?
The same guys who have Syria on the Human Rights committee?
The same guys running kiddy porn rings in the Congo?
The same guys who looted the oil for palaces scam?

Tell me this is just a joke and we aren't supposed to think that anyone is stupid enough to do it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:22 PM on 12/07/2011
A practically insurmountable task: how to get everyone on the globe onto the same global currency and government. What to do...what to do... what affects us all...climate!

I think the effects from exposing honest intentions would have been far more beneficial to that goal than using the scam of global warming, which anyone with a science degree has easily picked apart and found bogus.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael D Ballantine
Former Presidential Candidate - Amer Elect 2012
09:06 PM on 12/07/2011
The primary problem with this type of program is controlling where the money goes. Too often politics drive these decisions. The $100 billion figure proposed is only 10% of the amount needed over the next 50 years to support development efforts if we are to raise the standard of living for all global inhabitants. The calculation is really simple, every nation producing more than 3 metric tons per capita of carbon needs to contribute based on their percentage of GDP. I derive this number from the final target number that we need to reach in order to avoid going over the 450 ppm threshold. Countries can choose how they contribute either through taxes on their shipping, taxes on air transport, or direct contributions to specific projects proposed and approved by the world bank. This allows countries to meet the expectations of their citizens and control how much corruption will enter the system.

If the US would like to finance projects in specific countries. This can be done through guarantees, direct contributions, or indirect financing through offsets. For example, the local country provides the funds for the project and the US funds concrete and steel imports for infrastructure alleviating the need to use scarce dollars. As President, I would commit the US to provide $50 billion in funding arrangements to this and see no reason why President Obama would not do the same. If we have $100 billion/year for Afghanistan, we can have $50 billion a year for the world.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WESmith
Just say no to gasoline
04:44 PM on 12/07/2011
There seems to be a conundrum in the US. We The People make over a trillion dollars a year selling and taxing our coal and oil. We The People will pay any carbon tax, one way or the other. If we cut back on our energy use, we lose tax and royalty revenue. Another option is to make carbon a commodity to be traded on Wall Street and make them richer. Of course that doesn't reduce overall carbon output. Then again, reducing carbon output is like paying the minimum on a credit card. That credit card will more than likely never get paid off, and the bank will get a large part of your income without doing anything. To actually affect climate change, we would have to stop carbon output completely and find a way to get rid of the millions of tons we already exhausted in years past. In this way, we might see a change in a century or two.
photo
blackwind
Relax, nothing is under control
05:43 PM on 12/07/2011
I don't know where you are getting the idea that only stopping carbon output "completely" will affect climate change.
Any reduction or increase at all will affect the climate, and there's great value in slowing it down. If it were to happen slow enough, most of the problems associated with it would be much easier and cheaper to deal with, or would disappear altogether.
blake86303
more cowbell........
03:39 PM on 12/07/2011
Dear United Nations,

Due to unforseen low revenue, it is with great sorrow that we must cut back in all areas. Your services will no longer be needed as of 12/8/11. Please feel free to stay in your current accomodations until the end of the month.

Sincerely,

The taxpayers of the USA
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WESmith
Just say no to gasoline
03:25 PM on 12/07/2011
We can't fight Climate Change.
It is going to happen in part due to our greed.
Fighting greed with greed seems to be the solution.
Why don't we do something we can control?
We could stop polluting this planet with all of our disposible trash.
We could stop polluting this planet with our wasteful use of energy.
We are not going to accomplish anything pointing fingers and expecting others to take our "sins against the environment" away. Then it becomes a religion.
I am not going to wait for a miraculous world cure so that the planet stays the way it is right now just for our convenience.
photo
intolleft
ObamaCare...getting you shovel ready
02:50 PM on 12/07/2011
No money in it huh?
02:39 PM on 12/07/2011
100 billion per year?? I thought that the liberal loons said this was not a money thing! Who could possibly profit from this??
photo
blackwind
Relax, nothing is under control
05:21 PM on 12/07/2011
There is no profit in mitigating damage. Partial payment for damages doesn't get you ahead.
02:14 PM on 12/07/2011
According to a report recently released by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), global temperatures in 2011 are currently the tenth highest on record and are higher than any previous year with a La Niña event, which has a relative cooling influence. The 13 warmest years have all occurred in the 15 years since 1997. The extent of Arctic sea ice in 2011 was the second lowest on record, and its volume was the lowest.
02:40 PM on 12/07/2011
And what is the difference in the temp??? Its like less than 10th of a degree.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
03:57 PM on 12/07/2011
Just think of the results when the temperature rise reaches ten degrees.
01:22 PM on 12/08/2011
Tenth highest on record but much lower than during the medieval warming period and the Roman Warming.

That means recently there have been 9 more which were warmer?

I am underwhelmed.
02:30 PM on 12/08/2011
Unsubstantiated poppycock!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
beckjr2000
been there done that & tired of it
02:06 PM on 12/07/2011
Not ONE DIME of U.S. Tax Payer money to support this Global Fraud!
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
02:24 PM on 12/07/2011
Yeah man, and let's stop supporting the Evolution Fraud, the Smoking-Causes-CancerFraud, and the Moon Landing Fraud too.

/sarcasm

Science denier rhetoric is stupefying.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
02:36 PM on 12/07/2011
Even Rupert Murdoch says you're wrong.

Meanwhiile, Glenn Beck claims Saudi "Prince Al Waleed is a terrorist."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvP_zgE_wOM

Al Waleed owns 7% of News Corp., which owns Fox News, which employed Glenn Beck, making Glenn Beck a ...WHAT?

But $7.4 billionaire Rupert Murdoch, who runs Fox News, said in 2007

"Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats. We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can't afford the risk of inaction.

We must transform the way we use energy, and of course not only because of climate change..."

http://www.newscorp.com/energy/full_speech.html

And in 2011, he said,

"I am proud to announce that News Corporation has reached its first major sustainability milestone: we have become carbon neutral across all of our global operations and we are the first company of our kind to do so."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/01/rupert-murdoch-news-corp-carbon-neutral_n_829640.html?ir=Green

So, the guy who pushes the buttons that run Fox and cronies with Saudi Prince Waleed, who then-Fox employee Glenn Beck claimed was a terrorist, also

BELIEVES IN MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING and
HE PUT HIS MONEY WHERE HIS MOUTH IS !
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
beckjr2000
been there done that & tired of it
04:14 PM on 12/07/2011
One of the Great things about having money is that you can spend it anyway you want, even of stupid thing. That doesn't constitute a recommendation to waste Tax Payer Money on a Fairy Tale.
photo
artleads
Let's have a national retreat.
01:27 PM on 12/07/2011
Can a smaller amount of money be procured? Say, 10 billion? If so, could some new agreement on its disbursement be agreed to? Something tells me that rich, high-pollution countries don't want to open the door to legal recrimination, and so won't accept responsibility by paying into a mitigation fund. Yet, they surely know that doing nothing will backfire on them as well. So I would opt for a more conciliatory approach, based on the principle of big nations' self interest. What could result from that? Possibilities:

1) Agreements to sell at discounted prices small, decentralized technology to the developing world. Things like bicycle carts, water pumps, solar panels, efficient clay stoves, etc.

2) Attacking global warming through the back door by providing grants and loans to organizations proven to have the integrity and skill to plant billions of trees, or to protect standing forests. This would offset the 20% of GHG that result from deforestation.

10 billion would go a long way toward starting such programs and other similar ones. It would get the ball rolling and ensure a spirit of hope and progress, with better things to come as these programs demonstrate their worth.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WESmith
Just say no to gasoline
04:30 PM on 12/07/2011
Everyone is always looking for the bad guys that are destroying the world.

It is easy. Just look in the mirror.
photo
artleads
Let's have a national retreat.
04:57 PM on 12/07/2011
I thought I was trying to DOWNPLAY the bad guy scenarion. I guess I need to bend over backwards even more! What would you suggest I say instead?