ECO is sure that delegates remember the hot fires of dissent that the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage (WIM) was forged in. At COP19, in the wake of Typhoon Haiyan, Parties agreed that the WIM would enhance understanding, strengthen coordination, and enhance action and support — including finance. In fact, so hot was the passion of COP19, that terms like ‘enhance’ and ‘mobilise’ were used no less than five times in relation to finance in 2/CP19. Enthusiasm had not dimmed in the Paris Agreement, where again countries agreed to enhance action and support for loss and damage.
And yet some developed country delegates have tried to pour water and douse this fiery discussion. Instead of discussing FINANCE they are very keen to discuss FINANCIAL MECHANISMS, which, somehow seems always to focus on insurance. Insurance may play a role to address loss and damage in some instances, but it should not be confused with finance. In fact, insurance is something that requires finance; it demands premium coverage for the poor and vulnerable people and countries. Otherwise, it pushes the responsibility for dealing with the worst climate impacts onto those who did not cause climate change.
Delegates, as must be clear to anyone familiar with either the foundational mandate of the WIM, Article 8 in the Paris Agreement, or, indeed, with the impacts being faced by those on the front line of climate impacts, actual $$$, £££, €€€, ¥¥¥ is essential. And a significant amount — at least US$50 billion by 2022 — over and above adaptation and ODA finance, increasing along with the expected damages. Some sources suggest an order of magnitude of around $300 billion by 2030.
Yes. ECO hears your gasp. This much finance would be the equivalent to a doubling of existing ODA budgets through public finance. This is why ECO recommends considering fair and equitable innovative sources of finance. One such example is a Climate Damages Tax, paid for by the fossil fuel industry for the climate damage they are wreaking on vulnerable people. An equitable Climate Damages Tax, and other innovative sources, if well designed, could raise this kind of funds in a truly polluter pays fashion. Thus meeting the original mandate of the WIM, the spirit of the Paris Agreement, and ensuring that the people on the front line of climate impacts are not left to suffer without the international support and solidarity they have been promised.
My submission to Talanoa (though not accepted) promotes a mechanism for equal per capita “emissions permits“ . The Transformation submission is available at http://www.climatesense.org (a problem?j and soon at www,climatesense.wordpress.com Emissions permits are issued so the world does not exceed the carbon budget for the target temperature e.g. 1. 5° C or 2.0° C. The high-carbon developed countries have to buy permits from the low-carbon developing countries. The Kyoto Perotocol was the precursor for emissions trading. The second Kyoto commitment period was meant to embrace wide scale emissions trading that included the developing countries. It was intended that contraction and convergence would be used (GCI.org.uk)
My proposal uses contraction and convergence concept but with immediate convergence for the developed countries. The developed countries would be allocated per capita Emissions permits for the agreed global target. They have had 20 years from Kyoto to contract. global emissions.
My sums indicate huge transfers in emissions trade. The amounts are $100 billion a year or more. Such large amounts can ensure the SDGs are met within decades. This scheme can work. Ah yes, it is idealistic but we need to think of schemes to avoid dangerous climate change and when the political difficulties arise, then find suitable ways to overcome them. But let’s not ignore options because they look too hard on face value. Churchill said! “It is not sufficient to do our best; sometimes we have to do what is necessary”.
The proposal: a) provides clear, quantified targets avoiding arbitrary criteria for Green Development Fund; b) is fair; c) requires global annual emissions to drop regularly for some time, which creates strong pressures, especially for developed countries, to decarbonise; e) requires a sufficient number of high-carbon countries to participate knowing it decreases their GDP from what it might have been. 37 countries made this sacrifice and commitment under Kyoto and with a few more countries this can work again to the benefit of real assistance to developing countries AND cutting emissions. China at 30% fo global total is a desirable- essential? – player.
I hope that my paper will be accepted for the Carbon Pricing Conference in New Delhi in Jan 2019 run by the World Bank.
I would welcome your feedback, particularly support and suggestions of others whom I could contact.
Cheers
Harley Wright Striving to avoid dangerous climate change
20 Victoria St, Roseville, NSW 2069 Australia
Ph 9412 2313, Mob +61 428 976 450 | harleyjwright@gmail.com
image1.png