#climate finance

[rjzimmerman]

Trump’s USAID Cuts Will Have Devastating Impact on Global Climate Finance: Analysis - EcoWatch

Trump’s withdrawal of nearly all aid from USAID will significantly impact global climate finance to vulnerable nations, a new analysis finds

Excerpt from this story from EcoWatch:

President Donald Trump’s withdrawal of nearly all aid from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) will significantly impact global climate finance to vulnerable nations, a new analysis by Carbon Brief has found.

The U.S. spent roughly $11 billion on foreign aid last year, with a similar amount slated for this year if plans by former President Joe Biden had been continued.

“The US retreat from its global climate finance commitments is a staggering blow to the chances of keeping global temperature rise to 1.5C [above preindustrial levels]. By abruptly axing nearly a tenth of the limited funds for climate protection in developing countries, it is effectively abandoning millions of communities who have done nothing to cause global heating but who are losing homes, livelihoods and lives because of it,” Anne Jellema, 350.org’s executive director, told The Guardian.

Roughly $8 of every $100 in aid to help developing countries manage extreme weather impacts and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions came from the U.S.

Trump has threatened to cancel nearly all USAID projects, with climate funding likely to be put on the “cutting block,” an expert told Carbon Brief.

U.S. climate finance from USAID reached almost $3 billion in 2023, the analysis said.

The Trump administration has also cancelled an additional $4 billion in funding from the U.S. for the United Nations Green Climate Fund.

The $300 billion climate finance goal agreed upon by nations in 2024 could face an “enormous gulf” if the U.S. stops providing and reporting any official climate finance, another expert said.

The U.S. is the fourth-largest international climate finance provider, but also the largest economy and biggest carbon dioxide emitter in the world. In other words, its wealth and climate change responsibility are disproportionate to its contributions to global climate finance.

Just 0.24 percent of the country’s gross national income (GNI) is given as aid to developing countries — the same as the Czech Republic, whose GNI is three times less.

The Biden administration’s significant increases in climate finance helped developed countries reach their $100 billion target in 2022.

[wernher-von-brawny]

Looking for someone to blame for the extreme heat? Try Wall Street | Alec Connon

Banks’ financing of coal, oil, and gas was higher in 2021 than it was in 2016, the year after the Paris agreement was adopted

Since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015, the six largest US banks – Chase, Citi, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs – have provided $1.4 trillion in financing to the fossil fuel industry.

[geohoneylovers]

Taking Action for a Sustainable Future: A Global Stocktake "Must Be the Tipping Point" to Limit Global Warming" TO learn more: https://blog.geohoney.com/tipping-point-towards-limiting-global-warming

[ceevee5]

Rich nations have promised to pay for the climate crisis – but will they? | Gordon Brown

For too long pledges have gone unmet, so at Cop28 new solutions need to be explored, says Gordon Brown, WHO ambassador for global health fin

“About $2tn (£1.75tn) will be needed each year by 2030 to help developing countries cut their greenhouse gas emissions … And funds could be guaranteed on a sustained basis if the world’s richest countries agreed to share the burden fairly, based on their capacity to pay. While this is a proven model, used in 1966 in an attempt to eliminate smallpox, today only $7bn of UN financing (for peacekeeping) and just $1bn of health financing (to pay 25% of the current World Health Organization budget) is currently raised through a burden-sharing formula. All the rest comes through passing around a begging bowl. A world addressing an existential challenge should not have to rely on charity.”

[shreygoyal]

View on Twitter

An early draft of the Commission's proposal would also require EU countries to speed up permitting for new wind and solar farms.

🥳🥳🥳

(Source)

[irwinloy]

NYT: Local communities are taking the world’s largest polluters to court. And they’re using the legal strategy that got tobacco companies to pay up.

[unknownpoliticalobject]

EU announces €9bn in funding for climate action

EU funds will be focused on clean energy, and sustainable cities and agriculture, with Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation also pledging $300m towards climate adaptation

The EU funds will form part of the bloc’s External Investment Plan, and will be focused on sustainable cities, clean energy and sustainable agriculture. The announcement was made at the One Planet Summit in Paris

[rjzimmerman]

Who could replace US climate financing?

Decarbonization is a long game with a shifting line-up of players—and funds

Excerpt from this story from Anthropocene Magazine:

Lawsuits and political pressure may save a few projects here and there but the future of climate financing under the current US administration seems clear—there isn’t one. From a high water mark of over $11 billion in climate aid for developing countries last year, the US has already cancelled over $4 billion in pledges and will almost certainly renege on most of its other climate-related commitments. In the blink of an eye, the US has ceded its position as the largest global climate donor. Here, we stare into the climate financing hole and ask what’s next.

1. America last. The $11 billion that the US gave to climate financing last year accounted for about 8% of all international climate finance, according to this in-depth analysis by Carbon Brief. That was more than any other country, but still a lot less than its fair share calculated from its historical emissions and income level. Last year, the Center for Global Development estimated that the US should be paying between 45 and 55% of financing for climate projects and loss and damage payments. Anne Jellema, the executive director of 350.org, told The Guardian that the US move “is effectively abandoning millions of communities that have done nothing to cause global heating but are losing homes, livelihoods and lives because of it.”

2. Following the leader over the cliff. Right behind the US’s government were most of its big lenders. JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs have all now left the Net Zero Banking Alliance, a UN-sponsored group dedicated to keeping global warming to less than 1.5 degrees Celsius. Japanese and Canadian banks quickly followed suit. European countries have also announced cuts to their climate aid, in part in response to US calls for increased defense spending.

1.  More loans in the wings. While the US decision is objectively bad for progress on climate change, it’s not quite the end of the world. The US contribution to climate financing slumped before, from 2017 to 2021, Then, other nations and particularly development banks and private finance stepped up to fill the gap, according to Carbon Brief. By 2024, banks and private finance were supplying about two thirds of all climate financing, compared to a third direct from nation states. That trend shows no sign of slowing down. At COP29 in December, development banks pledged to increase climate finance for the poorest countries by 60% over 2023 levels over the next six years, to $120 billion.