Is International Climate Finance Unfair and Inefficient?
Finance is arguably the most sensitive climate negotiation topic. Different studies have shown that rich countries emit the majority of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, while the climate footprint of the poorest countries is much more limited.
In addition, the countries that emit the less often turn out to be among the most vulnerable to climate change, with high needs in terms of adaptation finance. According to some analysis, the 46 least-developed countries suffer from a high risk of loss and damage, and the countries that are the least at risk are in Europe. Therefore, developing countries are demanding contributions from the developed world to address their climate finance needs (both in terms of mitigation and adaptation). These demands have been somehow met with a pledge made at COP 15 in 2009, where developed countries announced a yearly contribution of 100 billion dollars (USD) by 2020. However, this pledge has not been honored.
Meanwhile, climate change is accelerating and, as a result, countries’ needs in terms of adaptation are increasing, as well as their loss and damage. The finance gap is widening and though the 100 USD billion pledge is expected to be achieved in 2023, analysis from the think tank Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) shows that it will not be enough to address the current needs. According to their analysis, the current flows need to be increased by at least 590% annually. This briefing will show that, in addition, climate finance is not accessible to the poorest and therefore increases inequalities and the exclusion of the most vulnerable countries. The Prime Minister of Barbados, Ms. Mia Motley, complains that the “international financial system […] is broken, outdated, infested with short-termism and downright unfair.
Available in:
Regions and themes
ISBN / ISSN
Share
This page contains only a summary of our work. If you would like to have access to all the information from our research on the subject, you can download the full version in PDF format.
Is International Climate Finance Unfair and Inefficient?
Center for Energy & Climate
Ifri's Energy and Climate Center carries out activities and research on the geopolitical and geoeconomic issues of energy transitions such as energy security, competitiveness, control of value chains, and acceptability. Specialized in the study of European energy/climate policies as well as energy markets in Europe and around the world, its work also focuses on the energy and climate strategies of major powers such as the United States, China or India. It offers recognized expertise, enriched by international collaborations and events, particularly in Paris and Brussels.
Solar Radiation Management: A Climate Tool with Geopolitical Implications
The Paris Agreement (2015) aims to keep global warming below 2 °C, preferably 1.5 °C, above pre-industrial levels. Mitigation (reducing greenhouse gas emissions) remains the core tool for reaching net carbon neutrality by mid-century. However, a temperature overshoot is anticipated. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) forecasts that the 1.5 °C threshold will be exceeded in the coming years, with warming potentially peaking between 2.2 °C and 3.6 °C this century. Against this backdrop, three trends characterize the climate policy debate.
China’s Hydrogen Economy Five Years On
China’s hydrogen sector is not new. It is the world’s largest industrial hydrogen system, rooted in ammonia, methanol, refining, coal chemicals and by-product gas streams.
27 Plans for 2027: Turning the Electrification Action Plan into National Action
With the aim of structurally reducing the European economy’s dependence on fossil fuel imports and accelerating the energy transition, the European Commission has opted for electrification.
How to Make European e-SAF Production under RefuelEU Aviation Fly?
Three and a half years before the scheduled entry into force of the European regulation ReFuelEU Aviation (RFEUA), which requires aviation fuel suppliers at Union airports to offer a sustainable synthetic alternative (e-SAF), no sizeable commercial production unit (greater than 10,000 tons per year) is active within Europe yet, nor has it even passed the Final Investment Decision (FID). Is a major step in the European Union (EU) plans for decarbonizing air transport at risk of not happening, or at least being postponed for several years? Is Europe losing its bet to create a market for e-SAF? Under what conditions can this bet still be won? Could sovereignty and energy security preoccupations unlock necessary public support and help to overcome economic, financial, logistical or administrative obstacles?