Economic Research Forum (ERF)

Climate finance: poorer countries need it as a matter of urgency

923
Climate change will shrink the economies of rich, poor, hot and cold countries alike, and will make it more difficult and more expensive to raise the finance needed to decarbonise in the future. This column, which originally appeared on The Conversation website, argues that the cost of early action is far cheaper than the cost of delayed action. Mobilising climate finance is a win-win for both the developed and developing economies.

In a nutshell

We have just seen a comprehensive and coordinated cross-country policy response to Covid-19, with more than US$16 trillion of government support rolled out globally (and at super-fast speed).

Climate change will require the same coordinated response – and the pandemic response shows that significant financing for decarbonisation can be relatively quickly mobilised.

Early investments in new technologies generate rapid cost reductions and will reduce asset stranding (wasted investments in already obsolete carbon-intensive infrastructure); further delay simply slows innovation and compounds the climate crisis.

The almost mystical Green Climate Fund is back in the headlines at the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow. The fund grew out of a promise made by rich nations in 2009 to provide US$100 billion (£74 billion) per year in ‘climate finance’ to help developing countries to decarbonise their economies. So far, the amount actually raised has fallen far short, though we might at least get there soon.

Climate finance is notoriously tricky to define. It’s rarely clear how much is really available, or how much is actually needed. So where does this money come from, and can those richer nations even afford it, especially following the Covid-19 pandemic?

The lack of a consistent, globally accepted definition of what counts as climate finance has led to a Wild West scenario, making it impossible to calculate how much is really out there and how environmentally friendly it really is. Governments and fund managers alike can attach ‘green’ labels to investments in new airports or ‘green’ funds with large stakes in fossil fuel companies. Some of this is likely to be blatant greenwash. But some of it simply reflects real-world complexity: if fossil-fuel majors raise finance to decarbonise their portfolios by building wind and solar farms, should this be considered ‘green’?

There are three broad categories of climate finance. The first is debt, which can be public (governments issuing bonds) or private (companies issuing bonds). A second category comes from shares and private capital. This can take many forms, but often includes ‘green funds’ that screen out polluting firms and industries.

The final category, and one that is a key interest at COP26, is the role of international aid in providing finance to help developing countries decarbonise – for example, by phasing out coal, developing low-carbon transport or restoring ecosystems such as mangroves that buffer against floods and storms.

In principle, climate-oriented international aid can take the form of grants, loans or direct investments and insurance, each with varying degrees of strings attached. In practice, however, these categories are highly controversial.

Take, for example, a hypothetical US$50 million loan from the United States to India for a new solar farm, which is to be repaid with US$10 million in interest. From the US perspective, US$50 million of climate finance has been provided. From India’s perspective, it received US$50 million but will ultimately send US$60 million to the United States, prompting the question of who is financing whom.

 

What is the Green Climate Fund and does it matter?

At COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009, rich countries promised to provide US$100 billion a year by 2020, which led to the formal establishment in 2010 of the Green Climate Fund with the aim to support developing economies to address climate change. Whatever metric or definition of climate finance you use, we have clearly not achieved the goal of US$100 billion a year yet. That figure will instead be reached in 2023 according to the latest estimates, though some at COP26 are more optimistic: both the EU’s Ursula von Leyden and US climate envoy John Kerry have said the goal will be met in 2022.

But because there’s no clear definition of what counts as climate finance, there are huge discrepancies in estimates of what has been committed so far. The OECD estimate (which is what the COP26 climate finance delivery plan is based on) is at the upper end, while Oxfam estimates that just over one-fifth of what has been promised has materialised so far.

 

How much is actually needed

Estimates of the amount of finance needed to actually decarbonise the global economy range between US$50 trillion and US$90 trillion. With a thousand billions in a trillion, that US$100 billion everyone is referring to is merely a decimal point.

It is also near impossible to figure out exactly how much green finance will be needed, since the total amount required depends on where the money goes and how soon we spend it. Early investments in new technologies generate rapid cost reductions and will reduce asset stranding (wasted investments in already obsolete carbon-intensive infrastructure). Further delay simply slows innovation and compounds the climate crisis.

Climate change will shrink the economies of rich, poor, hot and cold countries alike and will make it more difficult and more expensive to raise the finance needed to decarbonise in the future. The cost of early action is far cheaper than the cost of delayed action.

We have just seen a comprehensive and coordinated cross-country policy response to the pandemic, with more than US$16 trillion of government support rolled out globally (and at super-fast speed). Climate change will require the same coordinated response, and the pandemic response shows that significant financing for decarbonisation can be relatively quickly mobilised.

The bottom line is that mobilising climate finance is a win-win for both the developed and developing economies. And in the context of what will really be needed to address climate change, that US$100 billion is really just a distraction.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Tags: , , , ,

  • Kamiar Mohaddes
    Kamiar Mohaddes
    Associate Professor in Economics & Policy, University of Cambridge
  • Matt Burke
    Matt Burke
    Senior Lecturer in Finance, Sheffield Hallam University
  • Matthew Agarwala
    Matthew Agarwala
    Project Leader, The Wealth Economy, Bennett Institute for Public Policy, University of Cambridge
  • Patrycja Klusak
    Patrycja Klusak
    Lecturer in Banking and Finance at University of East Anglia

Most read

Trust in Lebanon’s public institutions: a challenge for the new leadership

Lebanon’s new leadership confronts daunting economic challenges amid geopolitical tensions across the wider region. As this column explains, understanding what has happened over the past decade to citizens’ trust in key public institutions – parliament, the government and the armed forces – will be a crucial part of the policy response.

Qatarisation: playing the long game on workforce nationalisation

As national populations across the Gulf have grown and hydrocarbon reserves declined, most Gulf countries have sought to move to a more sustainable economic model underpinned by raising the share of citizens in the productive private sector. But, as this column explains, Qatar differs from its neighbours in several important ways that could render aggressive workforce nationalization policies counterproductive. In terms of such policies, the country should chart its own path.

Small businesses in the Great Lockdown: lessons for crisis management

Understanding big economic shocks like Covid-19 and how firms respond to them is crucial for mitigating their negative effects and accelerating the post-crisis recovery. This column reports evidence on how small and medium-sized enterprises in Tunisia’s formal business sector adapted to the pandemic and the lockdown – and draws policy lessons for when the next crisis hits.

Economic consequences of the 2003 Bam earthquake in Iran

Over the decades, Iran has faced numerous devastating natural disasters, including the deadly 2003 Bam earthquake. This column reports evidence on the unexpected economic boost in Bam County and its neighbours after the disaster – the result of a variety of factors, including national and international aid, political mobilisation and the region’s cultural significance. Using data on the intensity of night-time lights in a geographical area, the research reveals how disaster recovery may lead to a surprising economic rebound.

The impact of climate change and resource scarcity on conflict in MENA

The interrelationships between climate change, food production, economic instability and violent conflict have become increasingly relevant in recent decades, with climate-induced economic shocks intensifying social and political tensions, particularly in resource-constrained regions like MENA. This column reports new evidence on the impact of climate change on economic and food production outcomes – and how economic stability, agricultural productivity and shared water resources affect conflict. While international aid, economic growth and food security reduce the likelihood of conflict, resource scarcity and shared water basins contribute to high risks of conflict.

Qatar’s pursuit of government excellence: promises and pitfalls

As Qatar seeks to make the transition from a hydrocarbon-based economy to a diversified, knowledge-based economy, ‘government excellence’ has been identified as a key strategic objective. This column reports what government effectiveness means in terms of delivery of public services, digitalisation of services, and control of corruption – and outlines the progress made to date on these development priorities and what the country needs to do to meet its targets.

A Macroeconomic Accounting of Unemployment in Jordan:  Unemployment is mainly an issue for adults and men

Since unemployment rates in Jordan are higher among young people and women than other groups, unemployment is commonly characterised as a youth and gender issue. However, the majority of the country’s unemployed are adults and men. This suggests that unemployment is primarily a macroeconomic issue challenge for the entire labour market. The appropriate response therefore is coordinated fiscal, monetary, structural and institutional policies, while more targeted measures can still benefit specific groups.

The green energy transition: employment pathways for MENA

The potential employment impacts of green and renewable energy in the Middle East and North Africa are multifaceted and promising. As this column explains, embracing renewable energy technologies presents an opportunity for the region to diversify its economy, mitigate the possible negative impacts of digitalisation on existing jobs, reduce its carbon footprint and create significant levels of employment across a variety of sectors. Green energy is not just an environmental imperative but an economic necessity.

Global value chains, wages and skills in MENA countries

The involvement of firms in production across different countries or regions via global value chains (GVCs) can make a significant contribution to economic development, including improved labour market outcomes. This column highlights the gains from GVC participation in terms of employment quality in Egypt, Jordan and Tunisia. Given the high unemployment, sticky wages and wide skill divides that are common in the MENA region, encouraging firms to participate in GVCs is a valuable channel for raising living standards.

Tunisia’s energy transition: the key role of small businesses

Micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) play a critical role in Tunisia’s economy, contributing significantly to GDP and employment. As this column explains, they are also essential for advancing the country’s ambitions to make a successful transition from reliance on fossil fuels to more widespread use of renewable energy sources. A fair distribution of the transition’s benefits across all regions and communities will secure a future where MSMEs thrive as leaders in a prosperous, inclusive and sustainable Tunisia.