At the current climate talks in Lima, COP20, the US argues that the words “additional, adequate and predictable” should be cut out from a decision about climate finance.
The US has signed several previous climate agreements, stating that a scaled up, additional, adequate and predictable financial resources is a necessity in order to address the adaptation and mitigation needs of developing countries. So why this change in position?
Looking into science, there is no doubt about the need for action. The latest climate report from the intergovernmental panel on climate change IPCC, gathering leading scientists from all over the world, stresses the link between emissions and global warming. And historically, developed countries such as the US have had a lot of emissions, while growth and industrialization has developed their countries.
Climate change is already affecting the lives of people in developing countries because of extreme weather events, droughts and flooding. If global warming increases above 2 degrees Celsius, it will have even more drastic effects for the whole world. Adaptation to these effects is costly.
Science underlines the need for us to combat global warming. We can no longer base our growth and development on fossil fuels. Developing countries have to choose another, greener path for development, even if it may become more costly than the path developed countries took years before.
The costs for developing countries, to adapt to climate change, and to change their development path towards a low carbon development, are big. This is why governments have agreed, that the only fair solution would be that developed countries supported developing countries to help them tackle climate.
It was agreed that climate finance should not be taken from existing development aid budgets, as this would mean that developing countries would actually pay the costs themselves, by receiving less money for education, healthcare and other important development needs. Climate finance should be additional and adequate. It should cover the country’s needs.
It has also been agreed that climate finance should be predictable, so that developing countries can plan their development. Anyone who has tried to make an investment knows how important planning is, and obviously the efforts will be more effective if the possibilities to receive support are known.
When the US now try to back track on the principles for how to deliver climate finance, it is based on a domestic and self-centered perspective. US is one of the largest emitters, both historically and currently, and they should take responsibility. International agreements may interfere with the Obama administrations national priorities. However, climate change is a global matter and it must be tackled through global cooperation.