#climate finance

Excerpt from this story from EcoWatch:

President Donald Trump’s withdrawal of nearly all aid from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) will significantly impact global climate finance to vulnerable nations, a new analysis by Carbon Brief has found.

The U.S. spent roughly $11 billion on foreign aid last year, with a similar amount slated for this year if plans by former President Joe Biden had been continued.

“The US retreat from its global climate finance commitments is a staggering blow to the chances of keeping global temperature rise to 1.5C [above preindustrial levels]. By abruptly axing nearly a tenth of the limited funds for climate protection in developing countries, it is effectively abandoning millions of communities who have done nothing to cause global heating but who are losing homes, livelihoods and lives because of it,” Anne Jellema, 350.org’s executive director, told The Guardian.

Roughly $8 of every $100 in aid to help developing countries manage extreme weather impacts and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions came from the U.S.

Trump has threatened to cancel nearly all USAID projects, with climate funding likely to be put on the “cutting block,” an expert told Carbon Brief.

U.S. climate finance from USAID reached almost $3 billion in 2023, the analysis said.

The Trump administration has also cancelled an additional $4 billion in funding from the U.S. for the United Nations Green Climate Fund.

The $300 billion climate finance goal agreed upon by nations in 2024 could face an “enormous gulf” if the U.S. stops providing and reporting any official climate finance, another expert said.

The U.S. is the fourth-largest international climate finance provider, but also the largest economy and biggest carbon dioxide emitter in the world. In other words, its wealth and climate change responsibility are disproportionate to its contributions to global climate finance.

Just 0.24 percent of the country’s gross national income (GNI) is given as aid to developing countries — the same as the Czech Republic, whose GNI is three times less.

View on Twitter

An early draft of the Commission's proposal would also require EU countries to speed up permitting for new wind and solar farms.

🥳🥳🥳

Excerpt from this story from Anthropocene Magazine:

Lawsuits and political pressure may save a few projects here and there but the future of climate financing under the current US administration seems clear—there isn’t one. From a high water mark of over $11 billion in climate aid for developing countries last year, the US has already cancelled over $4 billion in pledges and will almost certainly renege on most of its other climate-related commitments. In the blink of an eye, the US has ceded its position as the largest global climate donor. Here, we stare into the climate financing hole and ask what’s next.

1. America last. The $11 billion that the US gave to climate financing last year accounted for about 8% of all international climate finance, according to this in-depth analysis by Carbon Brief. That was more than any other country, but still a lot less than its fair share calculated from its historical emissions and income level. Last year, the Center for Global Development estimated that the US should be paying between 45 and 55% of financing for climate projects and loss and damage payments. Anne Jellema, the executive director of 350.org, told The Guardian that the US move “is effectively abandoning millions of communities that have done nothing to cause global heating but are losing homes, livelihoods and lives because of it.”

2. Following the leader over the cliff. Right behind the US’s government were most of its big lenders. JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs have all now left the Net Zero Banking Alliance, a UN-sponsored group dedicated to keeping global warming to less than 1.5 degrees Celsius. Japanese and Canadian banks quickly followed suit. European countries have also announced cuts to their climate aid, in part in response to US calls for increased defense spending.