UN Chief Wants Action on $100 Billion Climate Fund

ban ki moonBan ki MoonMore than five years after President Obama and other leaders agreed on a 2020 goal of raising $100 billion each year from public and private sources to help developing countries deal with climate change, the United Nations wants to see action.

Ahead of Earth Day on Wednesday, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is pointing to a meeting next month in New York where he says he will be looking for clear indications from governments and investors as to how the ambitious goal will be reached.

“Climate change is the defining issue of our times,” he told a conference hosted by Bloomberg New Energy Finance last week. “It is also an enormous economic opportunity.”

On Saturday Ban again tackled the subject, at an International Monetary Fund event in Washington.

“We need a credible trajectory for realizing the $100 billion goal per year by 2020, as well as the operationalization of the Green Climate Fund,” he said.

“This was a commitment which was made in 2009 during the Copenhagen climate change summit meeting. We have only mobilized $10 billion as an initial capitalization of this Green Climate Fund. I would really hope that there will be a trajectory, a path, which will be shown to the member-states.”

And at a pre-Earth Day concert on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., on Saturday night, Ban called on concert-goers to raise their voices in support.

“I want to hear from you,” he told the crowd. “It’s our last chance to slow global warming.”

Launched in 2011 as a result of that 2009 decision in Denmark, the Green Climate Fund (GCF) is designed to help developing countries curb “greenhouse gas” emissions and cope with occurrences blamed on climate change, such as rising sea levels.

The aim is to reach $100 billion a year by 2020.

As of April 10, the fund had received pledges from 33 countries, totaling $10.2 billion. That includes a $3 billion pledge by Obama last November, by far the largest contribution promised to date. Some GOP lawmakers have signaled an intention to push back.

The next big date on the international climate calendar is a U.N. climate mega-conference in Paris in November that is meant to deliver a new global agreement.

Ban and U.N. climate officials want clarity on the financing issue, as a confidence booster ahead of the Paris gathering.

Subsidies in the firing line

According to the World Bank, two key ways for governments to free up funding to help achieve the $100 billion target is by “putting a price on carbon” – through carbon taxes or emission trading schemes – and phasing out fossil fuel subsidies.

“With a small percentage of the money that saved by ending subsidies or of the revenue raised from a carbon tax or permit sale going to climate finance, governments could help meet the $100 billion climate finance commitment and other mitigation and adaptation needs,” it said in a report Saturday on the IMF and World Bank spring meetings in Washington.

A coalition of eight countries – Costa Rica, Denmark, Ethiopia, Finland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland – is targeting the subsidy issue in particular. The coalition, calling itself “Friends of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform,” said on Friday governments spent more than $548 billion on fossil fuel subsidies in 2013.

The group noted pointedly that this was more than five times more than the $100 billion target for climate mitigation and adaptation by 2020.

“The elimination of fossil fuel subsidies would make a significant contribution to the goal of keeping average temperatures from rising more than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels,” the coalition added, referring to the goal which world leaders several years ago decided was necessary to avoid what global warming advocates say will be potentially catastrophic effects on the planet.

Source

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (8)

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Tell Moon to run a raffle, Chinese auction or bake sale. The raffle and auction hold big possibilities.

    An auction for seats on the security council, women’s rights committee, even the office of Secretary !

    Open up membership for auction. Think of Microsoft and Facebook at the UN !

    Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    The UN is a rogue collection of tyrants, thieves, perverts, and swindlers. They would be totally irrelevant if they didn’t have their pick-pocket hands firmly around the American taxpayer’s wallet with this global AGW scam.

    Every time I see John Kerry bending over and dropping his trousers for these low-life criminals I want to scream.

    Other than that I have no strong feelings about the UN…

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    This from above…..
    “According to the World Bank, two key ways for governments to free up funding to help achieve the $100 billion target is by “putting a price on carbon” – through carbon taxes or emission trading schemes – and phasing out fossil fuel subsidies.”
    This is complete theft. When Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme was exposed, he was shut down and charges laid. When Enron was exposed, the same thing happened.
    But when the UN runs a “Ponzi” scheme based on the false claim that a trace gas CO2, can somehow override all the natural climate change causes, such as the sun, Milankovitch cycles; plate tectonics, and volcanism, everything is perfectly legitimate.
    What a travesty the world leaders have become.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Just Some Kid

      |

      That is a false analogy. It is nothing like a Ponzi scheme.

      Governments have the right (and need) to tax their citizens. And you should not depend on subsidies. That’s no different that being on welfare.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        JayPee

        |

        Government is not superior to the citizenry. It’s the opposite.

        I don’t expect you to understand.

        Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    It’s a Ponzi scheme when Al Gore’s cronies are enriching themselves based upon a phony carbon credit scheme that creates no value and provides no real services.

    It’s one thing to have elected US representatives tax citizens for real and necessary products and services. It’s quite another to have a bunch of international criminals tax US citizens as part of a phony scheme.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    GR82DRV I couldn’t agree more . Scary global warning rebranded to Climate Change
    is a $trillion industry . Climate changes ..
    who would disagree with that profound observation . Humans have some effect .No one here disputes that from what I see .

    Concern for the environment ?? I would think that most if not all people on this site
    care more about the environment than most .

    For good or bad I joined Greenpeace in the 1970’s and while I am no longer an active member it doesn’t mean I stopped caring about the environment ever . The people on this site are for the most part simply fed up with the gross exaggeration and chicken little lies about increases in CO2 .The” earth has a fever ” nonsense from self promoters trying to fleece the climate religion flock and anyone else they can dupe into believing what they are selling .

    Create a ‘problem ‘ and have the solution
    that people will feel good about . It doesn’t matter if it’s scary global warming or something else .

    It’s a massive scam no matter what label gets put on it .

    Lets work on all aspects of the environment
    for the right reasons .

    What

    Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    Amber, spot on about [i]real[/i] care for the environment. These low-lifes are preying on people’s legitimate desire to be good stewards, but therein lies the problem. People can no longer discern the difference between stewardship and radical (politically motivated) environmentalism.

    This is where I think conservatives have really missed an opportunity. Responsible stewardship is [i]exactly[/i] what conservatism is all about. Conservatives and Libertarians should [i]own[/i] stewardship and starkly contrast the differences between Marxist fraud masked as environmentalism.

    Reply

Leave a comment

No Trackbacks.