- Grist | Grist

Funding Goal

Most studies suggest that developing countries need trillions dollars of climate aid each year, but UN negotiators can’t agree on how much they should try to raise. A large target could mean more money for climate action — and more lives saved in developing countries — but it might also be counterproductive if contributing countries think it’s an unrealistic goal.

1 of 7

How large do you think the new goal should be?

More than $100 billion per year, but it doesn’t make sense to focus on the overall number. More than $1 trillion per year. More than $1.5 trillion per year. More than $2 trillion per year.

Funding allocation

Most climate aid to date has gone toward “mitigation” projects to slow future warming, such as solar and wind installations, but developing countries are also seeking money for “adaptation” projects that will make them resilient to future climate shocks (e.g. sea walls). Some countries are also insisting that the new goal include money for “loss and damage” — essentially reparations for climate-fueled disasters that have already happened.

2 of 7

How do you think the new climate aid goal should be apportioned?

Half should go to mitigation, and half should go to adaptation. One-third should go to mitigation, one-third should go to adaptation, and one-third should go to loss and damage. Contributing countries should try to strike a rough balance, but shouldn’t set hard targets.

Loans or grants

Almost 70 percent of the first batch of international climate aid came in the form of loans rather than no-strings-attached grants. While wealthy nations and private banks often issue aid loans at below-market interest rates, many recipient countries argue that loans can trap them in a predatory cycle of debt and interest.

3 of 7

How should loans count toward the new climate finance goal?

Loans should not count at all; climate finance must come through grants. Loans should only count if they have very low interest rates and don’t increase developing countries’ overall debt load. All loans should count toward the goal, even if they’re at market-friendly interest rates.

Should private sector contributions count?

The first $100 billion aid target was extremely vague about what counts as climate finance, so countries are only now haggling over what kinds of money should count. Some negotiators argue that loans from a country’s private sector should count toward that country’s total contributions, and that new financial instruments like debt swaps and insurance programs should count as well.

4 of 7

How strict do you think the goal should be about defining what counts as climate aid?

We should set one large overall goal and rely on a mix of public and private funds to get there, counting a wide range of finance and overseas aid toward the goal. We should set a large target for total aid and also set a smaller target for direct public investment that rich countries should pony up. We should count private investments if and only if they are proven to represent authentic new spending and reach vulnerable populations in developing countries. We should focus on direct public investment and not count any private money, debt swaps, or other financial instruments toward the goal at all.

The contributors

When the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed in 1992, the world’s countries were categorized into two groups: developed and developing. The world has changed a lot since then: While the original “developed” countries bloc is still responsible for a disproportionate share of the world’s historic carbon emissions, emissions in some of the original “developing” countries have risen rapidly (alongside their national incomes).

5 of 7

Which countries do you think should contribute to the new goal?

Only the “developed” countries named in the original UN framework. Countries with total per capita emissions or per capita GDP above a certain threshold. There shouldn’t be hard criteria, but countries should be encouraged to self-identify as contributors as they get richer.

The recipients

A core tenet of the 2016 Paris climate accord is that developed countries have a duty to fund the energy transition in developing nations. But under the original definition, the United Arab Emirates — home to the world’s tallest skyscraper and glitzy artificial islands — is still developing. So are rapidly-developing countries like China, India, and Singapore.

6 of 7

So: Which countries do you think should receive funds from future climate aid?

All developing countries as they were defined in 1992, including those who would now be considered developed. All developing countries as defined in 1992, except those whose per capita incomes have advanced beyond a certain threshold. All developing countries, but with a larger share set aside for the most climate-vulnerable (small island nations and the poorest African countries).

The timeline

Negotiators are hoping to learn from the lessons of the failed $100 billion promise: They’re debating whether to set a short-term goal that will play out over just a few years, or a more ambitious goal on a longer timeline.

7 of 7

So: Over what period do you think countries should raise funds?

The new goal should be fulfilled ASAP: between 2025 and around 2030. The new goal should be fulfilled between roughly 2025 and around 2035. The new goal should be fulfilled between 2035 and 2040, with the first 10 years used to gather funds. The new goal should be fulfilled between 2025 and 2050 — but with periodic check-ins every 5 to 10 years to ensure progress is being made.

Get your weekly dose of good climate news to your inbox