India Pushes for Surge in Climate Finance to $1 Trillion/Year From $100 Billion; Canada Skips Specificity; Chile Compromise? (1)

By Mathew Carr

Feb. 23-24, 2022: See India’s latest submission to the UNFCCC, including this snip (plus you can download below) on how the world needs a surge in climate finance:

Note: Annex II countries = rich nations tasked with providing finance; NDC = Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris climate deal

See document below

India’s solution:

CarrZee: It’s fair to say India has been consistent over many years in insisting on much improved finance for emerging nations with a lower blame for the climate crisis. There was little sign of success at the 26th UN climate talks in Glasgow, Scotland in November. Though the outcome there hinted at a much higher contribution from the private sector.

Note, India is downplaying the private sector contribution. Its submission mentions the $1 trillion a year should be “in the form of grant(s), concessional loans and guarantees.”

So private finance would presumably be on top of that.

Nations are holding meetings on future climate finance needs from next month through 2024. See this.

In its submission, Canada said:

“Canada is eager to see a new goal that, while setting expectations that are realistic, mobilizes more finance than ever before and directs flows to where they are needed most. In order to reach higher levels of finance, the new goal needs to include climate finance from a wide variety of sources, instruments and channels that go beyond what was envisioned in the USD100 billion goal, including through new and innovative ways to mobilize private finance and a broadened donor base – reflecting in part, the evolution of the global financial landscape since the goal was first established.”

On Feb. 23, there was this SUBMISSION PUBLISHED …FROM CHILE ON BEHALF OF THE AILAC GROUP OF COUNTRIES COMPOSED BY CHILE, COLOMBIA, COSTA RICA, HONDURAS, GUATEMALA, PANAMA, PARAGUAY AND PERU

This submission seems like somewhat of a mid-point stance …highlighting some important trade offs:

Seeing this the other way around, every dollar invested in building climate resilience could result in between USD 2 and USD 10 in net economic benefits, or said otherwise, that USD 1.8 trillion investment in adaptation measures (early warning systems, climate-resilient infrastructure, improved dryland agriculture, global mangrove protection and resilient water resources) would bring a return of USD 7.1 trillion in avoided costs and other benefits, as calculated by the Global Commission on Adaptation.

(UPDATES WITH AILAC)

NOTE:

Annex II countries:

The countries that were mandated under UNFCCC to provide financial resources also called the Annex II countries. These include the following countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, European Economic Community, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of America.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s