Posted on

Guest Essay: A New Idea as COP30 Approaches

Robin Hahnel, U.S. left libertarian economist and stalwart of participatory economics, has long been a friend of EcoEquity, and of the Climate Equity Framework that defines much of its work. In this guest essay, he argues that a fair shares climate transition can most effectively be financed by a global emissions trading system. Such an idea will of course be anathema to many of today’s activists, but note well that Hahnel speaks for a system in which “trades” only count towards a nation’s fair share if they are aggregated and accounted at the national level — like so:

“(1) If they wish any country government should be allowed to certify emission reduction credits for emitters within its national territory who apply for credits to sell.

(2) When calculating whether a country has complied with its national pledge to reduce emissions, any emission reduction credits purchased by anyone within the country will be added to the country’s national emission allowance, and any emission reduction credits sold by anyone within the country will be subtracted from the country’s national emission allowance.”

By Robin Hahnel.  Robin can be reached at robinhahnel1946@gmail.com

 

Ideally an international climate agreement would be:

  1. Effective: Reduce global emissions sufficiently to reduce the danger of cataclysmic climate change to an acceptable risk before it becomes too late.
  2. Equitable: Countries’ responsibilities for emission reductions should depend on (a) how much they contributed to creating the problem and (b) how capable they are of contributing to its solution.
  3. Efficient: The overall cost of reducing global emissions should be minimized.

Readers should always ask whether, and to what extent, any proposal under discussion achieves these three goals – what we might call the three “E’s” for an international climate agreement.

In Climate Change Not All Countries are Created Equal!

Before presenting a proposal for an agreement that would be effective, equitable, and efficient I want to explain where the distinction between “economically more developed countries” and “economically less developed countries” came from, and the important role it has played in international climate negotiations. The terminology “more developed countries,” or MDCs, and “less developed countries,” or LDCs, is taken from the development economics literature. More economically developed countries traditionally include countries like the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, and the countries which comprise the European Union. Most other countries, whose citizens have yet to enjoy the benefits of economic development, are traditionally designated as less developed countries.

Under the Kyoto protocol, which was negotiated in Kyoto Japan in 1997 and entered into force in 2005 after it was ratified by 192 countries, but not the United States, only countries designated as more developed were expected to commit to mandatory emission reductions, while less developed countries were excluded from mandatory emission reductions, presumably until they reach some higher level of economic development. However, this binary distinction between more and less developed countries fails to take account of important differences within each category. For example, China and the Republic of the Congo were both classified as less developed countries under the Kyoto protocol. But China bears much more responsibility for causing climate change and has much more capability to contribute toward its solution than the Republic of Congo; even though China bears far less responsibility and capability than the United States, which of course is classified as a more developed country.

While international negotiations continue to be dominated by disputes between less developed and more developed “blocs,” in truth the binary distinction between more developed and less developed countries is quite imprecise. For years nobody had developed procedures to overcome this problem. However, fortunately, that is no longer the case. We can now measure different levels of responsibility and capability on a continuum. Continue reading “Guest Essay: A New Idea as COP30 Approaches”

Posted on

Who Pays for Loss and Damage?  Who Pays for the Climate Transition as a Whole?

There’s a lot going on these days, and it’s easy to miss the important reports. You should definitely not miss The Loss and Damage Finance Landscape, which was just published by the Loss and Damage Collaboration (LDC) and the US office of the Heinrich Böll Foundation. 

The report is pretty comprehensive, but my question is a narrow one – how much money is the Loss & Damage fund going to need, and where is it going to come from? The authors – several of whom, I confess, I know quite well – begin by attacking the first of these questions in an entirely straightforward manner . . .

“Major climate and weather events in developing countries in 2022 caused more than US$109 billion in losses. This does not take into account smaller events which may have been devastating for a local community, slow onset impacts, nor non-economic loss and damage. Therefore, it can be said that the real loss and damage faced by developing countries in 2022 was considerably greater than US$109 billion. Updating widely used modelling of loss and damage in developing countries to 2023 US dollars, gives midpoint estimates of economic loss and damage of US$425 billion in 2020 and US$671 billion in 2030. It is therefore clear that discussion of loss and damage finance should use US$400 billion per year as a floor and acknowledge that financing needs will have to be revised upward over time.”

This is fine opening move, though loss & damage isn’t the only thing we have to worry about.  There’s also mitigation, and adaptation, and the need for a comprehensive global just transition, and the challenge of financing a reasonably fair fossil fuel phaseout. Which is to say that even though the costs of the climate transition cannot be fully reckoned in dollar terms, dollars are going to be needed, and quite a lot of them.  Further, this is now so obvious that even mainstream realists don’t deny it, not if they intend to be taken seriously. Witness this recent and very public comment by the new UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell . . .

“We know the scale of what’s needed is significant. Global models from the most authoritative institutions all converge in the range of trillions annually. According to the work of the UNFCCC’s Standing Committee on Finance, developing countries need nearly 6 trillion dollars to implement their climate action plans by 2030, and that’s with significant gaps in costing adaptation needs.”

You would not have heard this from the UNFCCC Executive Secretary ten years ago, or even five.  But this, it seems, is a new day!  So who knows?  Maybe other truths – now no longer plausibly deniable – will also come to be publicly noted.  We may soon have high-level diplomats telling us that all the costs implied by a sufficiently rapid climate transition can’t actually  be counted as “investments” – which are generally expected to be profitable. Or that loss & damage costs can’t realistically be packaged as loans that highly vulnerable developing countries can reasonably be expected to “pay back”. 

Continue reading “Who Pays for Loss and Damage?  Who Pays for the Climate Transition as a Whole?”

Posted on

Wealth tax of 0.5% could cover UK’s fair share of loss and damage fund

The UK’s Christian Aid — a long time supporter of the fair shares approach — just released a very nicely pointed report arguing that the UK could easily cover its share of the global loss & damage need with a minuscule wealth tax.

What they’ve done is taken a plausible estimate of the loss & damage need (insofar as it can even be expressed in money terms) and multiplied it by the UK’s fair share, as estimated by the existing version of the fair shares calculator, using moderately progressive equity settings. 

The Guardian article — see here— summarizes the bottom line:

“Estimates of [potential loss & damage costs] differ, but the range of $290bn-$580bn a year by 2030 is often cited, with a midpoint of about $400bn, taking into account inflation and rising climate impacts. Christian Aid estimates the UK’s “fair share” of this to be about 3.5%, or $15bn.”

This is a lowball figure that doesn’t consider adaptation and mitigation, but this was deliberate.  They didn’t want to get “laughed out of court in a first meeting”.

The report is also interesting for the very wide net it casts, in terms of possible sources of loss & damage finance. Here, quickly, are the top three:

“Wealth tax – One option would be to implement a national Net Wealth Tax in line with the parameters set out by the Wealth Tax Commission. A rate of 0.5% levied on wealth in excess of £1m is estimated to raise in the region of £15bn. This has the advantage of being targeted on those who are likely to be disproportionately high polluters in their consumption and personal investments.

Polluter producers’ tax – Another option would see fossil fuel companies generating the UK’s contribution to the Fund. The UK Government could increase the tax on excess profits from fossil fuel production to 95%, which according to Tax Justice UK could raise around £13bn.  Fossil fuel companies are enjoying record profits.

A third option could be combining smaller targeted taxes, such as the existing International Air Passenger Levy (£3.5bn), and revenues from two of the following three options: a) the Emissions Trading Scheme (£6bn); b) an expanded Financial Transactions Tax (£6.5bn) or c) the existing Energy Profits Levy (around £5bn annually). Together these would bring in revenue which could pay the £12.57bn/ $15bn fair share contribution to the Loss and Damage Fund.”

One last thing – this rather alarming chart, which Christian Aid took from the 2023 Climate Inequality Report

What you have here, briefly, is the planetary human population, divided into three slices. The poorest half, on the left, is exposed to 75% of the relative income losses projected to come with climate change, while having only 2% of the global wealth. The richest 10%, on the right, have a much sweeter deal — they enjoy 76% of the wealth, and are exposed to only 3% of the losses.

Go to the the 2023 Climate Inequality Report itself if you need the details here. It’s figure 29.

Posted on

Al Gore’s Rant at Davos

Al Gore has had his moments before. It’s always good to recall that — back in 2007, when the Kyoto Protocol was still a thing, and the realists of the day were telling us the equity challenge would have to wait — he used his access to the pages of the The New York Times to remind us that

“Countries will be asked to meet different requirements based upon their historical share or contribution to the problem and their relative ability to carry the burden of change. This precedent is well established in international law, and there is no other way to do it.”

His latest moment came at a panel at this year’s Davos jamboree. It was called Leading the Charge Through Earth’s New Normal and it began with Johan Rockström and Joyeeta Gupta introducing critical new research on “Safe and Just Planetary Boundaries”. Watch their presentation, noting that the planetary boundaries work now contains a much greater emphasis on justice than it used to — Joyeeta says “redistribution” twice! For more info on this work, see here, and here, and here. But first skip forward to 37:00 (or 39:00 if you have absolutely no attention span) to hear Gore’s rather brilliant rant. And I mean this in the best possible way.

Posted on

How to fund Loss & Damage

As you probably know, the big win at the last climate jamboree (COP27 in Egypt) was the establishment of the Loss & Damage facility. And a big win it was! The question, now, is how we’re going to provision that facility, how we’re going to fund the fund.

The principle of this website is transitional justice — how to provide the resources needed to actually achieve the climate transition. In the next year, we’ll have a lot to say about this, and about Loss & Damage finance in particular, but today, as I dig out my email, I just want to quote a particularly pithy summary of the road forward, one written by the inestimable Lidy Nacpil, together with Thuli Makama, both of whom hail from the Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development. It’s called Rich nations can afford to pay their fair share to fix global crises and here’s their summary of the menu, as it stood just after the COP.

The first [option] is making fossil fuel companies pay. While many households were pushed into poverty this year, oil and gas companies made record profits and governments continued to subsidise them. Ending fossil fuel subsidies would raise at least $600 billion a year, and a 10% tax hike on oil and gas production about $400 billion in 2022. Along these lines, the EU and UK among others have introduced windfall taxes on oil and gas profits, and U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres and small island governments are calling for part of these to be levied toward the loss and damage fund.

There is also momentum to shift a particularly influential form of fossil subsidy – international public finance – towards renewable energy instead. At COP26, 39 countries and institutions promised to end their $28 billion a year in international finance for fossil fuels by the end of 2022. While Germany, Canada, the U.S. and Italy have yet to meet this pending deadline, a growing group of countries has.

Second, a small tax on extreme wealth would raise $2.5 trillion a year, and related proposals to crack down on tax dodging would significantly bolster this. Because the world’s richest 1% have caused 23% of greenhouse gas emissions growth since 1990, these measures are also needed to reach climate targets. In a push that mirrored the loss and damage win, last week African countries secured a key step towards these reforms by passing a resolution for the U.N. to hold its own intergovernmental talks on tax rules rather than them remaining the sole domain of the OECD.

Calls to cancel Global South countries’ sovereign debts – incurred through our neo-colonial global financial system – predate the climate crisis but are intensifying with it. Campaigners brought these asks to COP27, pointing out that low-income countries are forced to pay wealthier countries the initial $100 billion a year they have been promised in climate finance many times over in debt service payments.

The economic volatility of the last few years has compounded debts in many countries, preventing public spending on basic needs, let alone climate action. In response, some governments and agencies are finally making serious debt proposals like cancelling $100 billion a year for the next decade.

Finally, Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley’s popular Bridgetown Agenda to tackle debt and climate has components of many these proposals, as well as an ask for the International Monetary Fund to inject at least $650-billion worth of reserve assets into struggling economies annually through Special Drawing Rights.

Together, these modest proposals add up to well over $3.7 trillion a year. More ambitious versions, closer to the scale of the Global North’s ongoing and historical debts to the rest of the world, could free up even more. We have always had the money for a liveable future where no one must choose between heating and eating, or transport and shelter – what may finally be arriving is the political impetus for the governments most responsible for today’s global crises to pay up.

Posted on

Before and after the COP

Debates — honest and respectful, but sometimes sharp debates — are a sign of healthy political movement, which among much else, must avoid groupthink. I’ve been trying to do my part, as you might notice from these two webinars:

The first — a Global Just Transitions webinar organized by the Institute for Policy Studies — was What Climate Debt Does the North Owe the South? It took place before COP27, and featured (in addition to yours truly) Meena Raman, president of Friends of the Earth Malaysia and head of programs at Third World Network, and Alberto Acosta, Ecuador’s former minister of energy and mining and one of the principle drivers behind Ecuador’s storied attempt to raise international funds to keep the oil beneath the Yasuni rainforest in the ground. IPS’s John Feffer ably summarized the discussion here.

The second — How Can COP be Effective? — was organized by Jeremy Lent at the Deep Transition Network. It featured me, of course, as well as Osprey Orielle Lake, the Founder and Executive Director of WECAN, the Women’s Earth & Climate Action Network, International, and scientist and filmmaker Phoebe Barnard. Phoebe was unfortunately on a train with bad WiFi, but Osprey and I managed, between the two of us, to do a passable job of answering Lent’s extremely pressing question.