President Obama Must Take the Lead on Climate Finance
There's another financial crisis on the horizon -- the climate financial crisis. Working towards the global meeting in Copenhagen this December, the UN's climate negotiations are teetering on the brink of failure. The elephant in the room of these negotiations is how to pay for a global agreement -- and who will pick up the tab.
If the administration does not get ahead of Congress and commit now to financing a global deal on climate change, negotiations will fail. And the cost of inaction and certain failure will be much higher than the cost of action. Once a tipping point is reached, we will face a human and financial catastrophe that will make this recession seem like a golden age of prosperity. And unlike our economy, once the damage is done, the climate will not rebound with a bailout package.
The challenge boils down to this: the developed world -- responsible for today's crisis -- must help pay the costs for the developing world to do the right thing. Those catching up to us -- China and India -- will have to participate too, but developed countries need to lead. The good news is that for $150 billion, the world can get far ahead of the problem. While the long terms costs are likely to be higher, this investment now will set the world on the right course.
At the September G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh, leaders recognized the need to get the financing right by directing their Finance Ministers to report back at the next meeting in November with a range of possible options for climate change financing. They should recommend a global target for climate finance of at least $150 billion annually by 2020 - and commit the United States to funding 30% of that target, or $50 billion, through public financing. Roughly a third of this would be used to help the developing world adapt to the current effects of climate change, another third for helping poor nations adopt clean technologies, and the remainder for other mitigation objectives, such as energy efficiency and forest protection.
To be sure, in the wake of the current financial crisis, such funding will be politically difficult to obtain. Yet, we managed to find $15 trillion for bank bailouts and stimulus plans, $1.3 trillion in tax cuts, and one trillion dollars for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The investment in saving our planet is no less urgent a challenge. The risks to our national security are real, including natural disasters, political upheaval, and further instability in states that could harbor the next Osama Bin Laden. And again, there is some good news. It costs billions, not trillions, and possible sources of public financing already exist, including revenues from the auctioning of allowances under cap-and-trade mechanisms, current climate and energy legislation, bunker fuel mechanisms, and international carbon and currency transaction levies.
But perhaps the most cost-effective way to help the world adopt clean energy and adapt to the effects of climate change is to stop propping up the very industry we should move away from -- fossil fuels. The world's richest G20 economies spend an estimated $300 billion a year to subsidize the industry most responsible for global emissions. In other words -- we have the money, we're just using it the wrong way. Re-directing this money would generate double the amount needed for climate financing -- and it wouldn't cost us a dime. At the September G20 summit in Pittsburgh, leaders asked for a plan to phase out those subsidies, but they won't consider it until June of 2010.
That is too leisurely a pace.
President Obama should press for a plan to be in place before the Copenhagen meeting this December -- preferably by the end of the G20's Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors Meeting on November 6 and 7. In the meantime, he should move to end our own subsidies and instruct the U.S. agencies that currently provide fossil fuel subsidies internationally to do so, including the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the U.S. Export Import Bank, and the Treasury Department which works through the World Bank. According to the Environmental Law Institute, this step alone would save us $72 billion, well more than what the United States needs to commit for its fair share of climate financing. Such transfers could break a major deadlock in the negotiations, and bring the developing world on board.
These are all ways to pay for a climate deal now - and at a much lower cost than doing it later. And such a move may be the only way to salvage the faltering Copenhagen negotiations. Should President Obama take the lead, the world will follow. And Congress just might as well.
Nancy Soderberg is a former US Ambassador to the United Nations and President of the Connect U.S. Fund, a consortium of six U.S. foundations promoting key foreign policy goals.
Francesco Femia is a Program Officer at the Connect U.S. Fund, where he focuses on climate and development issues.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Hasn't anyone noticed--Obama has failed to take the lead on anything so far. Don't hold your breath.
Those who are only interested in the continued prosperity and well-being of America, would do well to watch the presentation, "Climate Change Impacts Across America -- Renewed Focus for Decisions" here:
http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts
Then start thinking about what will happen if the developing countries follow our lead, which they are doing at a rapid pace. It's nothing less than a race to self-destruction of life on this planet.
Those posters here who scream BS and other epithets and who bury their heads in the sand with irrational denials, do not merit any serious consideration. Responsible scientists and officials who raise the red flag are not doing so out of ignorance or self-interest, but because they know there is a looming crisis that compels us to act. We in the U.S. should be the world leaders, because we have the resources and know-how, and because we have willy-nilly led the world down the wrong path for so long.
Healthcare is a crisis. Global warming is a crisis. H1N1 is a crisis. Economy is in a crisis. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
I think it is time for the world to stop expecting the USA to fund anything... Financing a Global Deal with our tax dollars? Get real... This country needs to stop funding these Global Deals and concentrate on making our economy and infrastructure Strong again... Enough with the hand outs, President Obama should be concentrating all available funds in the USA ...
See Nelson Montana's Profile
Instead of dealing with the global issue (in both the literal and figurative sense) it would make more sense to concentrate on simply cleaning the quality of the air and water. That's a more practical first step than attempting to stop the melting of the polar ice caps.
I am convinced that people like you are going about this entirely the wrong way.
First of all, the globe is warming. PERHAPS humans are contributing to that. But what if we're not? Or what if the globe would continue to warm even without human contributions?
Attempting to reduce the impact of humankind on global warming would then be utterly useless, and we would have needlessly wasted trillions of dollars.
If, on the other hand, the world took the approach that we must prepare for moderate global warming regardless of the cause, then we would not waste any money or handicap our economy while we are at it.
I guess since the eu just announced that it has struck a conditional deal on climate funding Obama doesn't have to lead anymore. He just has to act
May I suggest the before president Obama takes the lead in Climate Financing, the he might want to take the lead on Swine flu, the US economy, and the Unemployment rate.
All of those issues are important. But none of those issues have the potential for leading to the collapse of world civilization and the extinction of the vast number of species currently on this planet including us. For the sake of our children, grandchildren all the generations that follow, we must tackle and solve global warming. There is no price to great to pay to accomplish this. though Ironically, the countries that find the solutions quickest will be the countries that achieve the greatest prosperity.
You miss the point. The hysteria you just parroted isn't working anymore. Never did for most people.
What global warming?
It's strange that global warming is THE number one existential threat according to environmentalists, but they refuse to entertain one clear and feasible way to drastically reduce carbon emissions by embracing nuclear energy.
Anyone that thinks mankind faces monumental catastrophe within 1 century and then makes decisions based on storing radioactive waste thousands of years in the future simply isn't logical enough to bother paying attention to.
There are answers that can be put in place quickly and cheaply if you want to reduce the temperature of Earth but this isn't about that; it's really about the usual suspectsof power and control.
Take a look at this for starters
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/the-superfreakonomics-global-warming-fact-quiz/#more-20459
you know...the recent fires we had in Southern CA probably equaled like 10 years worth of CO2 that is emitted from the autos and trucks in the area. We are but a speck on the ass of the universe.....get over yourselves.
The highest ave temp we have experienced happened almost 12 years ago. The models we are basing these doomsday proclamations on couldn't even predict temps 2 years into the future accurately. What make you think they will be more accurate 50 years hence?
The climate debate is far from over if you are honest in the debate. We should not spend one penny more on this scam until we have much more reliable data.
The Southern California fires didn't produce anywhere as much CO2 as you claim. Furthermore, temperatures are continually rising with small peaks and valleys along the way. You also do not understand the role of climate models. They are actually better at predicting long term change than short term change. Short term changes are called weather and are much harder to predict than long term climate change.
To Offset Greenhouse Gas Damage Caused From California Wildfires During 2001-2007, State's 14 Million Cars Would Need To Be Locked In Garages For 3 1/2 Years, Study Finds
A study by Dr. Thomas M. Bonnicksen, Professor Emeritus of Forest Science at Texas A&M University, released today found that California's increasing wildfire crisis is causing more destruction and undoing much of the progress California is making to fight global warming.
Dr. Bonnicksen, who holds a Ph.D. in forestry from the University of California, Berkeley, and has studied California forests for more than 30 years, is author of America's Ancient Forests: from the Ice Age to the Age of Discovery (John Wiley, 2000).
This report, entitled "Impacts of California Wildfires on Climate and Forests," chronicles how the wildfires that scorched California from 2001 to 2007 seriously degraded the forests in the state and contributed to global warming. The report notes that political and economic obstacles to managing and restoring forests contribute to causing the wildfire crisis.
Emissions from the last seven years of wildfires documented in this study are equivalent to adding an estimated 50 million more cars onto California's highways for one year, each spewing tons of greenhouse gases. To offset this damage, all 14 million cars in California would have to be locked in garages for 3 1/2 years to make up for the global warming impact of these wildfires.
http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2009/08/24/forest-carbon-emissions-model-report-no-3/
Al Gore told us that we would be facing more severe tropical storms. This year is turning out to be the least active year in the last 30+ years.
When you have a model that doesn't fit the data, any reputable scientist throws out the model, not the data. This environmentalist fervor has turned science on its head.
Do any single-issue heroes understand the words, "WE ARE BROKE! THERE IS NO MONEY!"
If we are broke, how come we continue to spend $74 billion a year on subsidizing fossil fuels? As mentioned in the article (see below) even cutting our fossil fuel subsidies in half would give us the necessary financing. We are arguing for fiscal discipline. Reducing our fossil fuel subsidies, and putting up some of those funds to finance a global deal, doesn't have to cost us much in short term. And it will certainly cost a lot less than reacting to these changes in the future.
"In the meantime, he [President Obama] should move to end our own subsidies and instruct the U.S. agencies that currently provide fossil fuel subsidies internationally to do so, including the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the U.S. Export Import Bank, and the Treasury Department which works through the World Bank. According to the Environmental Law Institute, this step alone would save us $72 billion, well more than what the United States needs to commit for its fair share of climate financing."
Again, the money is available. It's just trapped, no pun intended, in the wrong pots. The President has the authority to change that.
If we were serious we would make cuts to the obscene military budget. We would decriminalize marijuana. We can do lots of things to find the money to combat global warming including raising taxes on the polluters and large corporations. We can't afford to not do those things.
Here's an idea, how about taking all of the billions/trillions we will spend on tax and trade and spend it on developing a way to cool the earth. If we spend literally 100's of billions of dollars and throw our economy back 50 years we will only make less than a half a degree of difference by the end of the century. Let science figure out a way to cool the earth instead, at a fraction of the cost. If a volcano can do it, then so can we.
Sorry, this may be too logical for most here.
THere is no safe technology currently available to cool the planet with the exception of sequestering carbon in the soil and in trees. We must end our dependency of fossil fuel as soon as possible by all means possible. There is no other alternative.
"The Greenland (Arctic) and Vostok (Antarctic) ice cores are particularly informative, offering fine temporal resolution and continuity. This has revealed surprising oscillations of climate on a millennial scale within the main 100-kyr cycle. The Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) identifies some 24 interstadials through the last ice age with average temperature rising rapidly by ~7 C over just decades. Further ice and sediment cores from around the world are demonstrating the global scale of these major climatic events."
From: Hewitt, G. 2000. The genetic legacy of the Quarternary ice ages. NATURE, Vol. 405, 22 June 2000 (www.nature.com)
"United States to funding 30% of that target, or $50 billion, through public financing"
Yea we get to pay for this also just like the $24,000.00 per car in the cash for clunkers program
I am sure our money will be well spent.
If the US taxpayers (not everyone in the US pays taxes) did not fund this but instead replaced all of our CFL and incandescent bulbs with LED bulbs and plant one tree each we would have still have 35 billion in our pockets along with doing more for the environment than this could ever hope to.
Don't forget the $160,000 per job "saved" by the stimulus.
Half of those are teachers' jobs, too. How many teachers do you know that make $160k?
We're already being robbed in plain sight. The Dems in the White House and Congress will keep looting us as long as they think they can get away with it, and this issue is no exception.
Fixing roads, bridges, sewers, schools, and weatherizing govt buildings isn't "robbing" us, and neither is paying teachers -- it's accomplishing something useful and helping to keep the economy afloat until the banks start lending again and people start spending again. This is not about the Stimulus, but about helping to put the world on a path of sustainability. It is obvious to anyone who has studied the trends, that the current path we're on is not sustainable and will cause enormous upheavals. It's so easy to "just say no" to any spending, but what they're talking about here is very minor compared with the totally wasteful defense and war spending that's been sapping our country's resources.
BS BS BS,,, first ,, CHINA AND INDIA ARE NOT DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.. second and most important , read and comprehend all the words,,,,THROWING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS DOWN THE SEWER OF CLIMATE FIXING IS THE EPITOME OF NONSENSE ,,,,, The Climate cannot and is not in need of being FIXED......
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
