View previous stories
	Money is vital for responding to the climate crisis by OHCHR, New Humanitarian, UNICEF, agencies   Oct. 2024   What’s the NCQG? For COP29 and the climate crisis, it’s ‘the answer to everything’. (New Humanitarian)   It may be the most important abbreviation you’ve never heard of. Four letters, NCQG, are set to dominate discussions at the looming UN climate summit – and may determine efforts to stem the global warming emergency.   At COP29, starting on 11 November, governments are set to thrash out a new climate finance target called the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG). That’s why in-the-know observers are already referring to the Azerbaijan-hosted summit as “the Finance COP”.   Money is vital for responding to the climate crisis: to pay for preparedness, for emergency relief after disasters, and for recovering from longer-term impacts and rebuilding.   Agreeing to the NCQG is crucial as it forms the financial bedrock on which the world’s plan to manage climate change – and its many harmful effects – will be based. But it won’t be easy: Who pays and receives climate finance – and how much – have long been some of the most contentious aspects of the COP negotiations.   “Finance underpins everything, so the NCQG is, unfortunately, the answer to everything,” Debbie Hillier, head representative at Mercy Corps for the Zurich Climate Resilience Alliance, a grouping of NGOs and academics, told The New Humanitarian.   From 2025, the NCQG, if agreed, should supersede the previous finance target, which was to transfer $100 billion per year by 2020 from the Global North countries whose historical emissions largely caused climate change, to those in the Global South. Both targets – the $100 billion and the plan to replace it after 2025 – were written into the 2015 Paris Agreement.   Estimates vary for how much the NCQG should be worth. The value of the goal, known as the “quantum”, tends to have a floor of around a trillion dollars per year, although how much of this should be public finance and grants will be hotly debated.   Low-income countries and climate campaigners have long said the existing $100 billion target is inadequate and are quick to flag how far it is from being met. They worry that a weak NCQG will further entrench climate inequities. An insufficient funding target “would lock in something terrible for 10 to 15 years”, said Hillier. “That is extremely dangerous.”   Officials in high-income countries, however, fret about their ability to pay their existing obligations amid shrinking aid budgets, domestic financial strains, and the threat of green backlashes from voters who may feel there are more pressing priorities.   Whether governments agree to the NCQG, and if it dedicates money to address the humanitarian impacts of climate change, will likely come down to the wire in Baku, finance experts told The New Humanitarian.   With COP29 fast approaching, here's a look at some key sticking points – with a particular eye on those most affecting humanitarian action.   What are the main streams of climate finance?   Climate finance has two key purposes – mitigation and adaptation – but their differences often require different types of money.   Climate mitigation is focused on reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon pollution. Private investment is often used here as many projects in this category – such as renewable energy facilities or electric cars – can provide a return.   On the other hand, climate adaptation is about preparing societies for the effects of global warming. Projects under this category are extremely varied, and in lower-income countries they can look a lot like traditional ‘development’ programmes, and are often funded by multilateral institutions like the Green Climate Fund.   Adaptation finance is also the pot from which humanitarians are eyeing funding for climate-framed programming like resilience-building and anticipatory action.   Because it can be harder to secure returns on investment for adaptation projects like building flood prevention infrastructure or environmental restoration, grant or concessional finance tends to be favoured.   Largely for this reason, adaptation finance massively lags behind mitigation finance despite widespread acceptance – including in the text of COP accords – of its need. Countries agreed in 2021 to double adaptation finance from 2019 levels by 2025, but progress towards this goal has been slow.   While significant amounts have been invested in mitigation, this does little to help those already experiencing the worst impacts of the climate crisis, spurring campaigners to seek dedicated targets – or sub-goals – on adaptation and loss and damage in the NCQG.   But securing new adaptation finance targets in the NCQG won’t solve all the headaches for humanitarians in what is a fiendishly difficult policy area, in particular when it comes to implementing programmes in the most vulnerable settings.   “It’s harder [compared to mitigation finance] to get large amounts of [adaptation] money to the local level in a way that is transparent, that is accountable. It’s difficult to disburse,” explained Sarah Colenbrander, director of ODI’s Climate and Sustainability Programme.   These problems appear “on steroids in a fragile and conflict-affected country”, Colenbrander said, adding that big international NGOs are likely to be the main conduits for adaptation finance to reach such settings – despite worries about transaction costs and increasing criticism of their models within humanitarian spaces.   But it’s not all bad. More adaptation finance should make more money available for the kinds of anticipatory action programmes – aimed at preventing disasters and preparing for them before they happen – that humanitarians say are sorely needed amid increasing climate risks.   Just 1.1% of crisis funding went to pre-arranged financing in 2022, and mostly to middle-income countries, according to research by the Centre for Disaster Protection. And it’s also worth noting for humanitarians that these types of initiatives tend to happen in more stable environments – not so much in fragile and conflict-affected areas.   How does loss and damage fit in?   Loss and damage, which refers to payments to help countries recover from climate disasters, has been a particularly fraught policy area. Some high-income countries view it “as a proxy for unlimited liability for historical emissions and the demand for compensation or reparations”, explained Alden Meyer, senior associate at the E3G think tank.   After years of tense talks, a Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) was finally agreed at COP28 last year, a decision hailed by campaigners as historic.   For the world’s most climate-vulnerable countries, the NCQG is seen as a key lever to move forward on loss and damaging financing.   In a pre-COP meeting, ministers from the V20 – a grouping of influential, climate-vulnerable countries from Barbados to Vanuatu – said the NCQG must address “loss and damage comprehensively”.   These countries are among those that, according to a recent analysis by the International Institute for Environment and Development, pay twice as much to service their debt than they currently receive in climate finance – despite having to borrow to repair from climate disasters.   Including money for loss and damage in the NCQG would make it easier to secure the large and likely growing sums experts say will be needed to respond to billions of dollars worth of climate damages each coming year.   But this would mean effectively recognising it as a third climate finance stream, alongside mitigation and adaptation. That’s far from guaranteed to happen at COP29 in Baku, amid questions over the pecking order, particularly when more adaptation finance is needed to prevent more loss and damage in the first place.   So while including loss and damage in the NCQG would clearly make a big difference to the health of the FRLD – and therefore to the budgets of humanitarians who would like access to this money for their related climate programmes – experts aren’t sure it’s going to happen.   “Loss and damage is likely to be one of the things that is traded in or traded out” of the NCQG negotiations, Colenbrander said. “I’m not saying it will be out, but the fact there’s not a clear consensus at this point, it’s clearly something that is on the table.”   Meyer was also sceptical, citing “strong resistance” from richer countries – “the US in particular” – to having an explicit loss and damage sub-goal in the NCQG.   For Hillier, and other humanitarians, the fact that paying for climate impacts wasn’t agreed under the Paris Agreement that set the NCQG timeline shouldn’t preclude loss and damage from becoming a “third pillar” of the climate finance negotiations. “Without it [in the NCQG], there will be no money in the loss and damage fund,” she said.   Colenbrander cautioned that if negotiators fail to include a dedicated loss and damage sub-goal in the NCQG in Baku, this will continue a “recurring theme” of disappointment for climate-vulnerable countries.   The Least Developed Countries fund and the Adaptation Fund – two long-established bodies tasked with improving the climate resilience of lower-income countries – “are really important parts of the climate finance architecture and they are very under-resourced,” she said.   Even without a place in the NCQG, loss and damage has achieved its own political momentum, which could lead to it securing more financing outside the FRLD fund, through schemes like the Global Shield, a pre-arranged finance programme.   What do humanitarians want?   The lack of climate finance funding going to fragile and conflict-affected contexts is another key problem, but it’s not a distinct part of the official negotiations, even if many humanitarians might want it to be.   Only 0.83% of climate adaptation finance in 2022 went to the 10 most fragile and conflict-affected places, according to a Mercy Corps’ analysis of OECD figures. Analyses by other NGOs and multilateral organisations point to a similar chasm.   The issue of conflict and fragility has gained increasing prominence in climate negotiations in recent years, with COP28 seeing a widely endorsed political declaration recognising it, and COP29 hosts Azerbaijan have made the topic a diplomatic priority.   Campaigners would like to go further: They want the problem recognised in the NCQG, with the agreement dedicating a specific portion of climate finance to help narrow the gap. The International Rescue Committee has called for 18% of all adaptation funding to go to the countries affected most by climate vulnerability and conflict – mostly in Africa and the Middle East – and for this percentage to be updated as needs assessments change.   Others have called for that amount to be far higher: Ritu Bharadwaj, principal researcher on climate change at the International Institute for Environment and Development, suggested that 40% of climate finance should be prioritised for fragile and conflict-affected countries due to the increased and myriad risks they face.   Getting such a target into the NCQG is likely to prove challenging, in part because fragile and conflict-affected states are not a unified bloc within the climate negotiations, said Colenbrander.   Laetitia Pettinotti, a climate economist with ODI, noted that, while the Paris Agreement recognises the special needs of "particularly vulnerable" developing countries, it only specifically identifies Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and least developed countries – not those affected by conflict.   What do humanitarians have to offer   Humanitarians are widely seen as having been a little late to the party when it comes to climate discussions, but many experts think their experiences in dealing with crises – including so-called natural disasters – gives them important perspectives on climate finance.   Their expertise in financial management will be particularly helpful for climate campaigners as they advocate for their vision of the NCQG, according to Jacobo Ocharan, head of political strategies at the Climate Action Network (CAN).   Speaking on a panel earlier this month, Ocharan referenced the 24 Principles and Good Practice of Humanitarian Donorship, a set of donor government guidelines on aid spending. He said they contained “plenty of elements… needed for discussions on climate finance”, such as predictability and flexibility. “This is important: the know-how, the experience, the things that have worked and have not worked in the past,” he added.   And while humanitarians are often criticised for falling short on the agenda to make aid locally led, Ocharan suggested the expertise they have built up in this area could be used to help get more money more quickly to smaller, grassroots organisations. Embittered by years of disappointing performances from multilateral funds, climate campaigners want the NCQG to include mechanisms to help disburse more money this way.   While negotiators prepare for a final showdown in Baku, humanitarians and climate campaigners are urging them to not lose sight of the big picture.   Failing to agree on robust NCQG targets – or worse, failing to agree on any at all – would cause a “lot of bad faith” because countries in the Global South “have been so clear on what they need”, said Hillier. “Climate finance is not about charity or generosity, or the goodwill of the richer countries,” she added. “It’s about responsibility, legal obligations, and justice.”   * Making climate finance work for all, report from Mercy Corps, Plan International, Concern Worldwide.   Aside from ending harmful fossil fuel subsidies, there are several other ways that developed countries could raise money to provide dedicated, affordable, accessible, new and additional finance for developing countries. These include the following:   • A fossil fuel extraction levy, where countries introduce a tax on fossil fuel companies based on the CO2 emissions equivalent of every barrel of oil, ton of coal or cubic metre of natural gas extracted within its borders. This could yield $210 billion annually.   • An air passenger or ticket levy, where countries place an extra surcharge/purchase tax on aeroplane tickets. This could be based on frequent flyer status, where the more someone travels, the more they pay. This could yield $4–150 billion annually.   • An International Maritime Organization greenhouse gas levy, where ship operators pay a fee based on the volume of greenhouse gas emissions from purchased marine fuel. This could yield around $60 billion annually.   • A global wealth tax on multimillionaires and billionaires. Establishing a 1% global tax on wealth over $1 million would yield revenues of around $1.159 trillion (ActionAid, 2018) and a 5% tax on multimillionaires and billionaires would generate $1.7 trillion per year (Oxfam, 2023).   Developed country policymakers should build on recent momentum around reforming the international tax regime and should implement such measures to help fund climate finance.   http://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/analysis/2024/10/24/what-ncqg-cop29-climate-crisis-answer-everything http://zcralliance.org/resources/item/making-climate-finance-work-for-all-five-tests-for-a-robust-new-collective-quantified-goal-ncqg/ http://cvfv20.org/v20-finance-ministers-call-for-shift-from-austerity-to-prosperity-growth-guided-climate-and-development-investments http://reliefweb.int/report/world/human-face-climate-change-addressing-malnutrition-crisis-opportunities-action-cop29 http://www.actionagainsthunger.org/publications/opportunities-for-action-at-cop29/   Oct. 2024   Remediation for loss and damage essential to ensure climate justice and realise the right to development: UN expert. (OHCHR)   Climate justice requires developed countries and large corporations, especially fossil fuel corporations, to accept their historical responsibility to remediate adverse impacts of climate change-related loss and damage on the right to development and other human rights, said Surya Deva, the Special Rapporteur on the right to development.   In his report to the UN General Assembly, Deva proposed a climate justice framework comprising four pillars (mitigation, adaptation, remediation and transformation) and 12 overarching human rights principles. This framework should guide climate actions of States, multilateral development banks, businesses and other actors.   “As climate change impacts all human rights, the time has come to develop international climate law in line with international human rights law. Affected individuals and communities should be able to seek effective remedies for past, current and future climate change-related loss and damage,” the expert said.   “A transformation is required in the current economic order, including the international financial architecture, business models and lifestyles, because they are merely promoting cumulative economic growth, creating inequalities both within and among countries and destroying the planet,” Deva said.   The Special Rapporteur recalled that the impact of climate change is not experienced by people and countries equally. Although only one tenth of the world’s greenhouse gases are emitted by the 74 lowest income countries, they will be the worst impacted by the effects of climate change.   “It is paradoxical that least developed countries and small island developing States that have contributed the least to climate change are the most exposed to its impacts,” Deva said. “Similarly, children, women, older persons, peasants, migrants, persons with a disability and Indigenous Peoples are impacted by climate in a different and disproportionate way.”   Although the decision to establish a Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage is an important step towards climate justice, it is critical for the World Bank, as an interim trustee of the Fund, and the Fund’s Board to integrate several human rights principles into all aspects concerning the Fund’s administration.   “The Fund should mobilise adequate additional resources, including by tapping into innovative sources of funding such as a wealth tax on super-rich and a carbon tax on fossil fuel companies. The Fund should be accessible to affected communities, be gender-transformative, adopt participatory decision-making processes and mostly offer grants not to worsen the debt burden of developing countries,” the expert said.   http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/10/remediation-loss-and-damage-essential-ensure-climate-justice-and-realise   Sep. 2024   The Impact on Loss and Damage from the Adverse Effects of Climate Change on the Full Enjoyment of Human Rights   At the 57th session of the UN Human Rights Council, the Global Initiative for Social, Economic and Cultural Rights delivered a statement on the impact of loss and damage from the adverse effects of climate change on the full enjoyment of human rights. The statement was meant to inform the Interactive Dialogue of the UN Secretary-General on the same matter.   The statement delivered highlighted the importance that despite significant strides have been made with the recent establishment of the Loss and Damage Fund, the current international architecture for managing loss and damage remains inadequate. It is imperative to increase financial flows. Thus far, the resources pledged fall drastically short of what is needed to address the scale and scope of the crisis.   Amid these daunting challenges, the statement emphasised that financing a just and adequate response to loss and damage is far from impossible. International tax cooperation is a decisive, yet often underestimated tool for unlocking the financial flows required to fund the structural transformations needed to address the impacts of climate change and ensure frontline communities have the means to cope with loss and damage.   In that context, GI-ESCR welcomed the report of the UN Secretary General makes an express reference to the importance of developing human rights and equity-based progressive taxation, guided by the polluter pays principle to target the fossil fuel industry and major greenhouse gas emitters in particular. This is a critical step forward to direct the necessary resources to respond to loss and damages suffered by the most marginalised.   http://gi-escr.org/en/our-work/on-the-ground/statement-on-the-impact-on-loss-and-damage-from-the-adverse-effects-of-climate-change-on-the-full-enjoyment-of-human-rights   * OHCHR: Report of the Secretary General:   Analytical study on the impact of loss and damage from the adverse effects of climate change on the full enjoyment of human rights, exploring equity-based approaches and solutions.   The report of the Secretary-General, submitted pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 53/6, contains an exploration of the interlinkages between human rights and loss and damage from climate change. The report includes the identification of legal and policy frameworks relevant to ensuring effective remedies for loss and damage, a description of human rights and equity-based approaches and solutions and a series of recommendations:   http://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session57/advance-versions/A-HRC-57-30-AEV.pdf http://www.developmentpathways.co.uk/blog/social-protection-is-a-prerequisite-for-climate-justice/ http://www.ilo.org/publications/flagship-reports/world-social-protection-report-2024-26-universal-social-protection-climate http://www.socialprotectionfloorscoalition.org/2024/05/policy-brief-social-protection-for-climate-justice-why-and-how/   Apr.2024   Taxing fossil fuel giants could raise $720 bn by 2030 to help world’s poorest with climate damages, new report finds.   A tax on the extraction of fossil fuels in the world’s richest advanced economies could raise $720 billion by the end of the decade to support the world’s most vulnerable facing climate damages, a new report has revealed.   ‘The Climate Damages Tax’ report is backed by over 100 climate organisations worldwide including Greenpeace, Stamp Out Poverty, Power Shift Africa and Christian Aid. It proposes that OECD countries, in particular members of the G7, lead in introducing a fee per tonne of CO2 embedded (CO2e) within the domestic extraction of coal, oil and gas.   The report argues for the bulk of the proceeds (80%) to be transferred to the newly established Loss and Damage Fund for assisting developing countries in their response to climate losses and damages. However, 20% – equating to $180 billion by 2030 – could be reserved as a ‘domestic dividend’ to support communities with the climate transition in countries where the tax is imposed.   The tax could be easily administered within existing systems of royalty payments or similar that fossil fuel companies already have to pay in the states where they operate.   The Loss and Damage Fund was operationalised by world leaders at COP28 in Dubai, but the $700 million pledged so far has been estimated to equate to less than 0.2% of the irreversible economic and non-economic losses developing countries are facing from global heating every year.   A significant proportion of global emissions can be attributed to a small number of fossil fuel producers, who have avoided paying for the rapidly growing costs of intensifying climate impacts even while their profits have skyrocketed.   The report’s publication coincides with the first meeting of the newly-established Loss and Damage Fund Board, who are gathering in Abu Dhabi tomorrow to discuss how the fund will be financed.   As well as generating much-needed funds to help countries least responsible for the climate crisis cope with the costs, the tax would help accelerate the phase out of fossil fuels by making their production more expensive through progressively ratcheting up the proposed tax rate each year.   Equally, the proposed domestic dividend would ensure that workers and communities in developed countries also reap benefits from the tax to ensure a just transition towards renewable energy and other green infrastructure.   If introduced in OECD countries in 2024 at a low initial rate of $5 per tonne of CO2e increasing by $5 per tonne each year, the tax would raise a total of $900 billion by 2030, equating to $720 billion for the Loss and Damage Fund and a $180 billion domestic dividend.   Areeba Hamid, a joint director at Greenpeace UK, said governments could no longer sit back and let ordinary people pick up the bill for the climate crisis while “oil bosses line their pockets and cash in on high energy prices”.   “We need concerted global leadership to force the fossil fuel industry to stop drilling and start paying for the damage they are causing around the world. A climate damages tax would be a powerful tool to help achieve both aims: unlocking hundreds of billions of funding for those at the sharp end of the climate crisis while helping accelerate a rapid and just transition away from fossil fuels around the world.”   The world has seen the devastating effects of the climate emergency, from crippling drought in Africa to deadly floods in Pakistan and Afghanistan.   Hamid added: “Extreme weather is claiming lives and causing catastrophic damage around the world. But while communities that have contributed least to the crisis find themselves on its frontlines, and households across Europe struggle with sky-high energy bills, the fossil fuel industry continues to rake in massive profits with no accountability for its historic and ongoing impact on our climate.”   http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/taxing-fossil-fuel-giants-could-raise-720-bn-by-2030-to-help-worlds-poorest-with-climate-damages-new-report-finds/ http://tinyurl.com/3bbbhj29 http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/29/taxing-big-fossil-fuel-firms-raise-billions-climate-finance   Mar. 2024   The urgent need for a child-centred Loss and Damage Fund, by Cristina Coloon, Lucy Szaboova. (UNICEF, agencies)   The world’s most marginalised children are already suffering the unavoidable impacts of climate change – death, displacement, malnutrition, the loss of education, and the destruction of traditional ways of life. These consequences are collectively known as climate-related loss and damage.   Since children have their whole lives ahead of them, such losses or damages suffered at an early age can lead to a lifetime of lost opportunity and can even affect future generations. That makes loss and damage related to climate change one of the greatest intergenerational injustices facing children today, threatening the rights enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child – such as the rights to survive and thrive, to protection, to clean water and food, to education and health, and to cultural heritage and indigenous knowledge.   Children have contributed the least to the climate crisis, yet they are suffering from its impacts more acutely than any previous generation.   The world has looked to climate finance to compensate those who have suffered the most due to climate change. Unfortunately, children’s unique needs and concerns have been largely overlooked in climate finance debates, a trend also reflected in climate finance allocations.   In 2022, nations agreed to set up a dedicated Loss and Damage Fund (L&D Fund), which is not only a significant milestone in climate negotiations, but also a chance to learn from past experiences of financing climate action. In fact, it is an opportunity to deliver climate justice for children on the frontline of the climate crisis.   Children’s first-hand accounts corroborate that climate-related loss and damage is part of their everyday realities. In a new report, Loss and Damage Finance for Children, 55 children, aged between 11 and 18, from diverse geographies share their experiences of loss and damage and recount memories of missing out on schooling, the loss or damage to their family home or livelihood, and even the loss of friends and family.   The children who shared with us their experiences unanimously demanded a seat at the table where discussions and decisions about loss and damage finance allocations take place. Their experiences and words make it clear that putting children’s rights at the heart of loss and damage finance is a matter of climate justice.   While the COP28 decision to launch the new L&D Fund recognizes youth as key stakeholders to participate in and shape the design, development and implementation of activities financed by the Fund, it only mentions children twice. To date, less than 2.4 per cent of climate finance has gone towards projects incorporating activities responsive to children’s needs.   At the same time, the way climate finance works now is pushing the countries most affected by the climate crisis into a debt crisis. When countries vulnerable to climate change are locked into a vicious cycle of indebtedness, with debt accumulating in tandem with accelerating losses and damages, compromises in public spending on essential services like education and healthcare often become inevitable. This has dire implications for children’s well-being and development.   It is important that the new L&D Fund, and loss and damage finance more broadly, break away from existing climate finance approaches.   The L&D Fund is a chance to ensure that present and future generations of children can thrive and fully exercise their rights. But this requires:   Recognizing children’s unique needs and vulnerabilities; facilitating their participation in decisions about the allocation and use of funding; ensuring the equitable distribution of loss and damage finance; and restoring children’s dignity when losses and damages are unavoidable.   Above all, it requires funding – sufficient, equitable, accessible and sustainable resources for meaningfully addressing the losses and damages suffered by children and their families.   It is crucial then that children’s rights are elevated, and their voices are amplified in discussions about implementing the L&D Fund as well as in setting the new global goal on climate finance. It is essential that this goal – called the New Common Quantified Goal – not only recognizes loss and damage as a critical pillar of climate finance, but that it is informed by the needs of climate-vulnerable children. We must not miss this opportunity to deliver climate justice for children.   * Cristina Coloon is Policy Specialist, UNICEF Innocenti; Lucy Szaboova is Climate Change and Environment Research Fellow, University of Exeter.   # Read the report Loss and Damage Finance for Children by UNICEF, Save the Children, Plan International, the International Centre for Climate Change and Development (ICCCAD) and the Loss and Damage Youth Coalition (LDYC).   http://www.unicef.org/blog/urgent-need-child-centred-loss-and-damage-fund http://www.unicef.org/innocenti/reports/loss-and-damage-finance-children http://www.endchildhoodpoverty.org/publications-feed/climatechange http://www.socialprotectionfloorscoalition.org/2024/05/policy-brief-social-protection-for-climate-justice-why-and-how/   Feb. 2024   Amnesty International is urging the rapid capitalization of the international Loss and Damage Fund meant to remedy the harms faced by communities most severely affected by climate change.   Following the hottest year ever recorded globally the need for action is acute, delays to act swiftly on an agreement at the COP climate summit in November to press ahead and deliver a working Loss and Damage Fund, threatens to undermine the human rights of communities which desperately need resources to deal with the impacts of climate change.   “The full operationalization of an adequately financed Loss and Damage Fund is potentially a matter of life or death for millions of people around the world facing the most severe consequences of global warming, such as droughts, floods, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, desertification and loss of livelihoods. Any delays to the disbursement of funds at the scale needed threaten the rights of people most affected by the increasing weather extremes and environmental degradation caused by our heating climate,” said Ann Harrison, Climate Justice Advisor at Amnesty International.   In joint open letter to the Board of the Fund for responding to Loss and Damage ahead of its second meeting in July 2024, signed by over 350 civil society organizations including Amnesty International, the group expresses the strong expectation and demand to have a dedicated community access window established within the Loss and Damage Fund that realizes direct access for people most affected by compounding and cascading climate impacts, in particular frontline communities, Indigenous Peoples, and people experiencing marginalization.   Such a dedicated window should ensure simplified and enhanced direct access to adequate funding support in the form of small grants that addresses the needs and priorities of those affected, and that their leadership and knowledge is recognized and fostered.   http://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ior40/8370/2024/en/ http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/04/global-g7-phase-out-of-coal-power-must-come-faster-to-protect-those-on-the-frontline-of-the-climate-crisis/ http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/01/global-hottest-year-on-record-underlines-severity-of-the-climate-crisis/ http://wmo.int/news/media-centre/2023-shatters-climate-records-major-impacts
	People globally want their governments to take stronger action to tackle the climate crisis by UN Development Programme, University of Oxford   June 2024   The biggest ever public opinion survey on climate change, the Peoples’ Climate Vote 2024, shows 80 percent – or four out of five – people globally want their governments to take stronger action to tackle the climate crisis.   Even more – 86 percent – want to see their countries set aside geopolitical differences and work together on climate change. The scale of consensus is especially striking in the current global context of increased conflict and the rise of nationalism.   Over 73,000 people speaking 87 different languages across 77 countries were asked 15 questions on climate change for the survey, which was conducted for the UN Development Programme (UNDP) with the University of Oxford and GeoPoll. The questions were designed to help understand how people are experiencing the impacts of climate change and how they want world leaders to respond. The 77 countries polled represent 87 percent of the global population.   “The Peoples’ Climate Vote is loud and clear. Global citizens want their leaders to transcend their differences, to act now and to act boldly to fight the climate crisis,” said UNDP Administrator Achim Steiner. “The survey results – unprecedented in their coverage – reveal a level of consensus that is truly astonishing. We urge leaders and policymakers to take note, especially as countries develop their next round of climate action pledges – or ‘nationally determined contributions’ under the Paris Agreement. This is an issue that almost everyone, everywhere, can agree on.”   Biggest emitters support stronger climate action   The survey revealed support for stronger climate action in 20 of the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitters, with majorities ranging from 66 percent of people in the United States and Russia, to 67 percent in Germany, 73 percent in China, 77 percent in South Africa and India, 85 percent in Brazil, 88 percent in Iran and up to 93 percent in Italy.   In five big emitters (Australia, Canada, France, Germany and the United States), women were more in favour of strengthening their country’s commitments by 10 to 17 percentage points. This gap was biggest in Germany, where women were 17 percentage points more likely than men to want more climate action (75 percent vs. 58 percent.)   Fossil fuel phaseout   Aside from a broad call for bolder climate action, the survey shows support by a global majority of 72 percent in favour of a quick transition away from fossil fuels. This is true for countries among the top 10 biggest producers of oil, coal, or gas. This includes majorities ranging from 89 percent in Nigeria to 54 percent of people in the United States. Only 7 percent of people globally said their country should not transition at all.   People across the world reported that climate change was on their minds. Globally, 56 percent said they were thinking about it regularly, i.e. daily or weekly, including some 63 percent of those in Least Developed Countries (LDCs).   More than half of people globally said they were more worried than last year about climate change (53 percent). The corresponding figure was higher for those in LDCs (59 percent). On average across the nine Small Island Developing States (SIDS) surveyed, as much as 71 percent said they were more worried than last year about climate change. 69 percent of people globally said their big decisions like where to live or work were being impacted by climate change.   Prof. Stephen Fisher, Department of Sociology, University of Oxford, said: “A survey of this size was a huge scientific endeavour. While maintaining rigorous methodology, special efforts were also made to include people from marginalised groups in the poorest parts of the world. This is some of the very highest quality global data on public opinions on climate change available.”   Cassie Flynn, Global Director of Climate Change, UNDP, said: “As country leaders decide on the next round of pledges under the Paris Agreement by 2025, these results are undeniable evidence that people everywhere support bold climate action. The Peoples’ Climate Vote has enlisted the voices of people everywhere – including amongst groups traditionally the most difficult to poll. For example, people in nine of the 77 countries surveyed had never before been polled on climate change. The next two years are crucial for the international community to take actions to ensure that warming stays under 1.5°."   http://peoplesclimate.vote/ http://www.undp.org/publications/peoples-climate-vote-2024 Visit the related web page
	View more stories