Nations pledged $9.2 billion to a foreign aid fund to help developing nations adapt to the effects of climate change, so far falling short of a $10 billion goal.
The offerings to the Green Climate Fund made Thursday at a meeting in Berlin included the $3 billion the Obama administration committed. Stocking the Green Climate Fund, an independent trust created through the United Nations, is viewed a pivotal for keeping emerging economies engaged in international climate talks next year in Paris.
But environmental and anti-poverty groups said the $9.2 billion simply wasn’t enough as nations head to Lima, Peru, in December to hammer out a draft text for a deal to govern greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2020 to keep global temperatures from rising 2 degrees Celsius by century’s end.
“Financial support from developed countries should be a building block for a global climate agreement, not a stumbling block,” said Alison Woodhead, who heads Oxfam America’s climate and food program, known as GROW. “Many developed countries have stepped up to give the Green Climate Fund a chance to get on its feet, but more is needed for it to succeed.”
Developing nations see the Green Climate Fund as a way for post-industrial and wealthy countries to show they’re committed to the climate process. To poorer nations, it’s an issue of fairness — they didn’t pump the emissions that are driving climate change into the atmosphere, but they’re least-equipped to deal with the effects and now may be asked to restrain their emissions just as their economies heat up.
Those nations and outside groups hope to draw $15 billion to the fund for the first three-year operating period and still believe they can get to the $100 billion by 2020 that was floated when the fund was created. Oxfam said that contributions from Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada and Ireland, which haven’t made any yet, would help.
But many observers of the U.N. negotiating process say that $100 billion mark is an unrealistic goal. For one, the Green Climate Fund just opened for business, and some nations are hesitant to park their dollars there. Many countries must also deal with domestic politics to free up funds.
The United States is case in point on that. While the White House has committed $3 billion, much of that will likely come from shifting existing spending because the GOP-controlled Congress that takes over in January is unlikely to OK a net increase in foreign aid for climate efforts.
That’s not to say the White House won’t try to free up new spending, John Podesta, an adviser to President Obama, said this week in a media call.
“I think we’re going to have to get up there and explain why these funds are necessary and needed and are in the U.S. national interest,” Podesta said.
