The Inflation Reduction Act showed that the United States has the potential to lead on climate. But more actions are needed if the country wants to carry out the global transformations needed to tackle the climate crisis. A women’s cooperative member cleans an array of solar panels that powers the borehole that supplies water to a market garden in the Fulani village of Hore Mondji, Mauritania.Raphael Pouget/Climate Visuals Countdown, CC BY-NC 4.0 The Inflation Reduction Act—signed into law by President Joe Biden—delivers the strongest climate action in US history. It finally begins to position the United States to put its domestic house in order and meet its global obligations to address the climate crisis. This bold legislation must be just the beginning of additional US actions to mobilize the global progress needed in this decisive decade The new law provides $369 billion in additional public investments for energy clean and the climate in the United States. These investments will further lower the cost of clean energy technologies, including wind and solar, as well as electric vehicles, heat pumps, and other energy-efficient products. This will accelerate their adoption across the country, which will have the potential to reduce US greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by 40 percent by 2030 (from peak levels of 2005). To address the climate crisis, the United States needs to move on three fronts. at the same time. First, the United States needs to get its own domestic house in order to reduce emissions quickly. The Inflation Reduction Act with additional actions by the Biden administration can fulfill this promise. The second part of the strategy must be to support other countries to ja they quickly cut their own emissions. Providing financial and other support is essential to achieve this goal. And finally, the United States should support the poorest communities and countries to adapt to the impacts of climate change and addr. who are experiencing the losses and damages they are already experiencing. The United States is the world’s largest historical contributor to climate change by a wide margin; therefore it has a great responsibility to support the countries that did not cause the climate crisis but are facing the burden of the impacts. More actions on these three fronts will be needed to ensure that the United States makes the global transformations necessary to address the climate crisis. Delivering strong international climate finance. richer countries provide support to enable poorer countries to switch to clean energy and adapt to the impacts of a warming world. So far, US climate investment overseas has not lived up to that promise. The United States needs to significantly increase its international climate financing if it is to effectively meet global climate ambitions. In 2009, developed countries committed to deliver $100 billion a year by 2020 in climate finance to developing countries. But developed countries failed to achieve this goal, reaching only $83 billion in 2020. The United States lags far behind other developed nations in holding up its end of this financing agreement. The European Union (EU) and its member states currently provide more than four times as much climate finance (about $25 billion in 2020) as the United States, even with a smaller economy. In September 2021, President Biden promised to provide more than $11. billion a year in financing of climate by 2024, quadrupling Obama-era levels. Achieving this goal puts the United States on a better path to being a credible global actor on climate change. To achieve that goal, Congress needs to increase the amount of funding it appropriates for specific international climate programs. This includes resuming contributions to the Green Climate Fund, where the State has only delivered a third of its $3 billion pledge made in 2014. Such financing provides multiple benefits: Strengthens markets for US clean technology exports, strengthens national security against disruptions from climate impacts, increases international credibility and influence of States United States, and mobilizes the actions abroad that are necessary to address the climate crisis globally. For fiscal year 2022, Congress has approved just $1 billion for direct international climate bills (see chart below). While this amount set the floor, not the ceiling—the total investment could be greater, as the Biden administration has some discretion to spend more—current US funding for -climate will still fall short of what is needed. President Biden’s $11 billion budget proposal for climate finance for fiscal year 2023 is finally starting to catch on. The fiscal year 2023 funding bill is currently working its way through Congress, and it is imperative that lawmakers fight for ambitious levels of climate funding in the final appropriations act. Sources: Presidential Budget Requests for FY22 and FY23; Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY21 and FY22; The House committee markup and the Senate majority proposal of the appropriation bill years of FY23. In addition to Congress approving funding for specific climate bills, the Biden administration has other avenues it can pursue to increase international climate funding. The president’s budget request plans for about half of the $11 billion in climate finance to come through US foreign development agencies such as the International Development Finance Corporation of -United States (DFC), the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), the United States Trade and Development Agency (USTDA), and the Export-Import Bank (EX- IM). Biden could direct these agencies to increase their climate work within their overall operations. The administration should also earmark budgets for unspent and flexible funds that can be directed to internal National climate action. Leading the first international clean energy agenda The Biden administration has a policy in place to eliminate support for the US government for foreign gas, oil and coal projects. From 2017 to 2019, the United States provided $2.5 billion per year in direct support to foreign gas projects and an associated amount as a shareholder of multilateral development banks (MDBs) that provided approximately $3.4 billion per year of support. By ending these investments, the United States can redirect them to manage global renewable energy, energy efficiency, storage, transmission, electric vehicle, and other clean investments that are consistent with -our climate objectives. To accomplish this goal, the Biden administration needs to: Stop building new LNG export facilities: US LNG exports are at an all-time high. In March 2022, the administration promised 15 billion met additional cubic ru (bcm) of LNG this year to support the EU. in weaning itself off Russian gas. The United States exported almost 39 bcm of LNG to Europe in the first six months alone, compared to 34 bcm in 2021, and worked with other allies to continue to direct supply to European countries. There is no justification for additional LNG supplies or infrastructure expansion in the United States beyond the current pipeline of three additional LNG capacity expansion projects. As we noted in a recent report, “the expansion of US LNG infrastructure is unsustainable and deeply damaging to energy security, the climate, people and communities.” Deny oil and gas financing in MDBs and bilateral finance. The US government has committed to eliminating foreign financing of overseas oil and gas projects using a set of detailed criteria, but its application appears to be uneven across various agencies. . In addition, the United States has issued guidance that it will vote against oil and gas projects through MDBs, except in very rare circumstances. At the same time, the United States needs to increase support for developing countries to rapidly deploy wind, solar and geothermal energy, along with energy efficiency and electric vehicles to help reduce the need for fossil fuels to power their economies. Working with other partner governments, financial institutions and energy firms, the United States needs to leverage higher volumes of investment for building clean technology in developing countries. For example, this effort could help accelerate the global deployment of wind and solar to more than 1,000 gigawatts (GW) annually by 2030, as outlined in the International Energy Agency’s net zero plans. -Energy (IEA), through the cane that politicians and diplomats all available. The project pipeline is strong, and the United States has many tools to catalyze the necessary support. A recent study found that there are 13,000 “shovel-ready” renewable energy projects in 40 countries (see figure). The DFC, Ex-Im, USTDA, the US Department of Commerce, and the State Department have significant tools to help US and major companies. countries accelerate the use of climate smart technologies. For example, DFC invested in India to support an American company’s solar manufacturing in the country to help India meet its ambitious renewable energy deployment goals. USTDA provides resources to turn a renewable energy deployment idea into a bankable action plan, such as a feasibility study in the Philippines or solar-plus-storage projects in Nigeria. The Department of Commerce has a network of trade professionals located throughout the United States and in embassies and consulates in more than 80 countries that can support American companies with potential clean technology projects abroad. The Inflation Reduction Act opened the door for a new US national green bank. which will help catalyze private investment in clean energy. Likewise, the United States should support other countries that seek to establish their own green banks or specialized facilities that can help build project pipelines, structure transactions, and provide innovative financial instruments and cost-sharing mechanisms. risk to mobilize additional domestic and international private capital to spur the growth of new green markets in developing countries. the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and the Inter-American Development Bank—have provided key climate finance leaders. But they can be doing much more. Most MDBs have failed to meet their self-designed 2020 climate finance targets; their funding for adaptation is still too low, and they have struggled to mobilize private funding at the necessary scale. The United States is a major shareholder in these financial institutions, so it can have a significant influence on their operations. The Biden administration should instruct its board members to push MDBs to increase their climate financing, especially for adaptation; help accelerate the use of renewable energy; align their overall operations to support the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals; and use improved approaches to promote private investment in climate action. There are tens of billions of new dollars that could come from making MDBs work smarter and smarter on climate finance. Support is given to the most vulnerable around the world to cope with the impacts of the climate. the impacts of climate are already being felt around the world. Developing countries have done the least to contribute to the climate crisis but are hit first and worst by the impacts. The United Nations Environment Program estimates that adaptation costs in developing countries will reach $155 to $330 billion per year by 2030. the effects of climate change. The provision of international financing is an important means of enabling developing countries to increase their climate resilience, but mitigation currently receives the largest share of financing for -climate. The Paris Agreement includes a goal for countries to achieve balance in their provision of climate finance not between mitigation and adaptation. While some countries have already reached 50:50, only about 25 percent of US climate finance currently goes to adaptation. At COP26, developed countries agreed to collectively double their adaptation funding from 2019 levels to 2025. Last year, President Biden launched PREPARE, the President’s Emergency Plan for Adaptation and Resilience. It commits $3 billion a year in international adaptation funding through 2024, a six-fold increase over Obama-era spending, and sets out a number of measures to transform the way agencies of development of the United States overseas support adaptation. To meet these funding goals, Congress will need to appropriate significantly increased adaptation-specific funding. Despite these efforts, many communities are reaching the limits of adaptation and are facing inevitable and irreversible losses and damages. Existing funding for adaptation and humanitarian assistance is not a sufficient response to this reality. The United States needs to increase efforts to prevent, minimize, and meaningfully address the loss and damage experienced by vulnerable countries and communities. Implement domestic policies and deliver additional actions according to existing laws. Passage of the Inflation Reduction Act has the potential to reduce emissions by 40 percent by 2030 (from 2005 peaks), but the Biden administration has two major tasks to accomplish its target of reducing emissions by 50 to 52 percent by 2030. The Biden administration needs to fully implement the law to realize a 40 percent reduction, and it needs to implement additional federal actions by issuing a comprehensive set of standards in at least five key areas. Whereas tw hit its target of 50 to 52 percent, the United States could encourage other high-emission countries. s to significantly increase their actions in this decade to help close the emissions gap. This could also have the dual benefit of helping to spur even faster action in the global market. The intelligent implementation of these investments and standards will help to quickly reduce the cost of these technologies, create innovative solutions for their deployment, and help to move the entire global market. After all, the significant deployment of solar has played a major role in reducing its installation costs by more than 60 percent over the past decade, helping to make it cost competitive with solar plants. -coal and gas energy. Similar trends are occurring in wind, electric vehicles and energy storage. With the rapid deployment of the United States, combined with the investments of the other major economies, we may reach another tipping point where the scale of global deployment significantly exceeds current expectations. And that kind of non-linear progress is urgently needed as we are not currently on the path to the scale of deployment that is needed globally. The United States needs to lead on many fronts For more than three decades, the United States has lagged behind in efforts to address the climate crisis. The Inflation Reduction Act along with additional domestic actions from the Biden administration have the opportunity to begin to position US domestic actions more favorably. However, this will need to be combined with real global leadership that increases climate finance, accelerates the shift from fossil fuel energy to renewables, and helps address climate impacts that the most vulnerable around the world are already suffering. The Biden administration needs to pursue every avenue possible to help lead the clean energy transformation the world urgently needs.
The Inflation Reduction Act showed that the United States has the potential to lead on climate. But more actions are needed if the country wants to carry out the global transformations needed to tackle the climate crisis.
A women’s cooperative member cleans an array of solar panels that powers the borehole that supplies water to a market garden in the Fulani village of Hore Mondji, Mauritania.
Raphael Pouget/Visual Climate Countdown, CC BY-NC 4.0
The Inflation Reduction Act—signed into law by President Joe Biden—delivers the strongest climate action in US history. It finally begins to position the United States to put its domestic house in order and meet its global obligations to address the climate crisis. This bold legislation must be just the beginning of additional actions by the United States to mobilize the global progress needed in this decisive decade.
The new law provides $369 billion in additional public investments for clean energy and climate in the United States. These investments will further lower the cost of clean energy technologies, including wind and solar, as well as electric vehicles, heat pumps, and other energy-efficient products. This will accelerate their adoption across the country, which will have the potential to reduce US greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by 40 percent by 2030 (from peak levels of 2005).
To address the climate crisis, the United States needs to move on three fronts simultaneously. First, the United States needs to get its own domestic house in order to reduce emissions quickly. The Inflation Reduction Act with additional actions by the Biden administration can fulfill this promise. The second part of the strategy must be to support other countries to quickly cut their own emissions. Providing financial and other support is essential to achieve this goal. And finally, the United States must support the poorest communities and countries to adapt to the impacts of climate change and address the losses and damages they are already experiencing. The United States is the world’s largest historical contributor to climate change by a wide margin; therefore it has a great responsibility to support the countries that did not cause the climate crisis but are facing the burden of the impacts. More actions on these three fronts will be needed to ensure that the United States makes the global transformations necessary to address the climate crisis.
About the Authors
Jake Schmidt
Senior Strategic Director, International Climate, International Programme
Joe Thwaites
International Climate Finance Advocate, International Program
Shruti Shukla
International Energy Lawyer, International Program Read also : USA vs Haiti – Football Game Report – July 4, 2022.
Brendan Guy
Director, International Climate, International Programme Read also : United States Supports Canadian Return of Turbine to Germany – United States Department of State.
Are countries providing enough to the $100 billion climate finance goal?
If all $100 billion came from public sources, only five countries provided enough: France, Japan, Norway, Germany and Sweden (although France, Japan and Germany all provided the most of their finances as loans). Read also : Life in the US is not what these Afghans expected.
What was the purpose of the 100 billion dollar fund and why was it important to the talks? In 2009, governments around the world committed to allocating $100 billion a year by 2020 to help developing countries address the impacts of climate change.
How much climate finance is needed?
An increase of at least 590% in annual climate finance is needed to meet the internationally agreed climate objectives by 2030 and to avoid the most dangerous impacts of climate change.
How much in funds had developed countries promised to provide by 2020 for developing countries on adaptation?
In 2009, developed countries committed to jointly mobilize $100 billion a year in climate finance by 2020 to support developing countries to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change. climate.
How much money do developing countries need to fight climate change?
The UN estimates6 that developing countries already need $70 billion a year to cover adaptation costs, and will need $140 billion–$300 billion in 2030.
What activities does climate finance fund?
KEY CLIMATE FINANCE FUNDS Established by the UNFCCC in 2010, it is the largest fund in the world dedicated to helping developing countries reduce their GHG emissions and adapt to the impact of climate change. -climate, with particular attention to the needs of the most vulnerable countries.
What is the purpose of climate finance? Climate finance helps countries reduce greenhouse gas emissions such as by financing renewable energy such as wind or solar. It also helps communities adapt to the impacts of climate change.
How do climate funds work?
What is Climate finance? In general, climate finance relates to the money that needs to be spent on a whole range of activities that will contribute to reducing climate change and helping the world reach its goal of limiting warming. global for an increase of 1.5°C above. pre-industrial levels.
What is the difference between green finance and climate finance?
â Green finance includes climate finance but excludes social and economic aspects. â Climate finance is a subset of environmental (green) finance. Sustainable financing is therefore the broadest term, covering all financing activities that contribute to sustainable development.
Who produces the most greenhouse gases in the world?
- The United States. The United States is the largest emitter of CO2, with approximately 416,738 metric tons of total carbon dioxide emissions by 2020. …
- China. China is the second largest emitter of carbon dioxide gas in the world, with 235,527 metric tons by 2020. …
- The Russian Federation. …
- Germany. …
- The United Kingdom.
Who is the biggest contributor to greenhouse gases? Transport (27% of 2020 greenhouse gas emissions) â The transport sector generates the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation come primarily from burning fossil fuel for our cars, trucks, ships, trains and airplanes.
What are the top 3 producers of greenhouse gases?
China, the United States, and the nations that make up the European Union are the three largest emitters on an absolute basis. Per capita greenhouse gas emissions are highest in the United States and Russia.
What is sustainable finance examples?
Examples are investments in the education sector, agriculture, clean transport, clean energy and ecological administration. Investment vehicles come in a wide variety of forms from around the world and include equity, debt, lines of credit, or loan guarantees.
What are examples of sustainable investments? ESG investment decisions tend to rely on measurable ESG factors, as established by analysts. For example: Environmental: Carbon emissions, water use and conservation, clean technology. Social: Workplace safety and benefits, community development, diversity and anti-bias issues.
What does sustainable finance include?
Sustainable finance refers to the process of taking environmental, social and governance (ESG) considerations into account when making investment decisions in the financial sector, leading to more long-term investments in sustainable economic activities and projects.
What are the three main elements of financial sustainability?
Sustainability is often represented diagrammatically. The figure at the top of this page suggests that there are three pillars of sustainability – economic viability, environmental protection and social equity.
