EE: F1N4NC1NG CL1M47E CH4NGE
Even though we live in a world ruled by the economy and the market, it is difficult to set a numerical value to natural resources and the impact of human activities on our planet, mainly because they are unprecedented resources to humanity that have a socio-cultural value and are often life-essential.
How ever, environmental degradation and excessive consumption of recourses are a reality that must be addressed in one way or another and therefore “there is a need to advance the understanding of the options used to raise new sources of international climate finance and to engage policymakers and stakeholders to make the case for scaling up predictable finance. There is also need to increase national debates on how to operationalize innovative sources of climate finance.”
This idea provided by the Report on the workshops of the work programme on long-term finance on the 18th COP session of UNFCCC, definitely leads me to reflect about, how is the issue of financing climate change currently faced worldwide?
It is known that many sources of funding both private and public are now being applied, among which are: policy incentives and agreements, risk management, carbon taxes, cap and trade systems, loans and other voluntary systems. Even though billionaire quantities have been raised up, neither money nor programs have been sufficiently effective to face the increasing green house gases (GHG) emissions, excessive consumption of resources, the destruction of natural environments and the social consequences.
According to the Emission Gap Report 2012, the total amount of GHG emissions have risen from 40 Gt in the year 2000 to 50.1 Gt in 2010 and could go up to 58 Gt by 2020. “The report estimates that there are potentially large emissions reductions possible—in a mid-range of 17 Gt of CO2 equivalents—from sectors such as buildings, power generation and transport that can more than bridge the gap by 2020.”
It is possible to foresee then that the shift to a future more respectful with the environment that ensures the viability of not only economic activities but of natural and human life, is possible.
Next steps?
After concluding its 18th sessions the Conference of the Parties decided “to extend the work program on long-term finance for one year to the end of 2013, with the aim of informing developed country Parties in their efforts to identify pathways for mobilizing the scaling up of climate finance to USD $100 billion per year by 2020 from public, private and altemative sources in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, and informing Parties in enhancing their enabling environments and policy frameworks to facilitate the mobilization and effective deployment of climate finance in developing countries”
In theory the approach is positive as it increases the monetary targets in fundraising, as well as extending the program for another year at least, and for the involvement of private-public sector and alternative sources in order to reach “meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation”.
However when analyzing the global context in which hundreds of laws and rules are being adopted, implementation appears a real challenge in the way to achieve mitigation and significant changes that are not yet a reality. We are facing legal systems that vary from country to country and often involve major barrier to the implementation of programs.
It seems to me that governments worldwide should include or reinforce the in their agendas the issue of the environment and in particular climate change, in order to make it a priority. However, as it is a problem extensive to business and society it’s necessary to adopt measures to enable the monetary contribution of all actors.
The debate, beyond the conclusions on meetings like DOHA 2012, must be grounded in each country in order to find the most innovative solutions adapted to their legislation and culture.