Search

Begin New Search Topic Climate Change Political Geography Global Focus Publishing Institution Center for American Progress - CAP

1. A Proposal for U.S. Leadership on International Climate Finance During the Trump Administration

Author:
Gwynne Taraska
Publication Date:
05-2017
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
Finance for low-carbon and climate-resilient international development accounts for only a small fraction of the U.S. federal budget: an estimated 0.04 percent of overall spending per year from 2010 to 2015.1 Nevertheless, it is a key means for the United States to advance the global climate effort. In fact, because of its role in addressing the climate challenge worldwide, U.S. climate aid rivals or exceeds the U.S. emissions reduction target in international importance. Climate finance is also integral to domestic interests given the economic and security effects of climate change. Accordingly, investment in clean energy and disaster preparedness in developing countries has a long history of bipartisan support in the United States. The current administration, however, has proposed dramatically reducing the international climate budget. This is consistent with its general abdication of climate leadership to date. Regardless of whether the administration nominally participates in international climate initiatives and forums, it is likely to continue undermining domestic climate policies and environmental protections.
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, International Cooperation, and Leadership
Political Geography:
North America, Global Focus, and United States of America

2. How Climate Change and Water and Food Insecurity Drive Instability

Author:
Carolyn Kenney
Publication Date:
11-2017
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
he 2016 U.S. presidential election gave rise to concerns about how the next administration might—or might not—approach the challenges posed by climate change. Unfortunately, thus far, the current administration has not only ignored these challenges but also has taken steps to undermine efforts to combat them, such as announcing the U.S. intention to withdraw from the landmark Paris Agreement, rescinding the Clean Power Plan, and revoking former President Barack Obama’s Memorandum on Climate Change and National Security.1 Presenting one small sliver of hope at this year’s Conference of the Parties, acting Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs in the U.S. Department of State Judith Garber noted that though “the United States intends to withdraw [from the Paris Agreement] at the earliest opportunity, we remain open to the possibility of rejoining at a later date under terms more favorable to the American people.”2 However, the overall picture remains bleak. The steps back from climate mitigation and response could not come at a worse time, given the rapidly accumulating costs of a changing global climate. As detailed in a previous Center for American Progress report, since 2011, the United States has experienced 84 extreme weather events, which have resulted in some 2,000 deaths and cost a total of roughly $675 billion in damages.3 Additionally, according to the most recent Global Climate Risk Index, between 1997 and 2016, “more than 524 000 people died as a direct result of more than 11 000 extreme weather events” around the world, which cost about $3.16 trillion in purchasing power parities.4 These costs, however, are not distributed evenly around the world; they disproportionately fall on the most vulnerable and least equipped to adapt and rebuild. For instance, as the Planetary Security Initiative calculates, from 2004 to 2014, 58 percent of disaster deaths occurred in countries considered to be ranked among the top 30 most fragile states on the Fragile States Index.5 Despite the high costs of extreme weather events, investments aimed at reducing the risks posed by climate change abroad have been insufficient. As pointed out in a report by the U.N. High-Level Panel on Humanitarian Financing, for every $100 spent on development aid projects, “just 40 cents has gone into protecting countries from succumbing to natural disasters.” Driving the need for investment further, the report notes that “12 out of a group of 23 low-income countries received less than US$ 10 million for DRR [Disaster Risk Reduction] over 20 years while receiving US$ 5.6 billion in disaster response.”6 This administration has compounded this problem by moving to slash spending on international and domestic institutions and mechanisms that actively work to prevent costly climate and humanitarian crises.7 However, it is clear that investing in preventive measures, whether they are aimed at conflict prevention or climate change resilience and mitigation, actually reduces costs in the long run. This is true monetarily and, more importantly, in terms of the cost to human lives and livelihoods. The United States should be making strategic investments to build resilience and allay costly future emergency responses—not cutting the already paltry investments in prevention.
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, Water, Food Security, Scarcity, and Destabilization
Political Geography:
Global Focus

3. Advancing Climate-Compatible Infrastructure Through the G-20

Author:
Gwynne Taraska, Peter Ogden, Nancy Alexander, and Howard Marano
Publication Date:
12-2016
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
To date, 17 G-20 countries—which account for 67 percent of global greenhouse gas pollution—have officially joined the Paris Agreement, bringing the pact into effect sooner than anyone expected.1 If they follow through with their commitments to reduce emissions, it will represent unprecedented progress in the global effort to curb climate change. U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, meanwhile, has suggested a number of actions, including dismantling the Clean Power Plan and pledging to “cancel” the Paris Agreement, that would drive the United States—and potentially other countries—in the opposite direction.2 In light of this, the G-20 summit in July 2017 provides an important opportunity for committed major powers to resist backsliding by any and all G-20 countries—and even to make some progress in meeting the climate challenge. To its credit, the German government, which officially assumed the G-20 presidency in December 2016, has taken steps that position the summit well for just such an effort. When German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced her three “pillar” objectives for the summit, she explicitly identified climate change as a priority. These pillars include fostering global economic stability; making the global economy viable for the future, including through the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; and establishing the G-20 as a “community of responsibility,” including by promoting a compact with Africa that would address infrastructure investment, among other topics.3
Topic:
Climate Change, International Cooperation, Infrastructure, G20, and Green Technology
Political Geography:
Europe, Germany, and Global Focus

4. Finance for Climate Resilience in the Dawn of the Paris Era

Author:
Shiva Polefka and Gwynne Taraska
Publication Date:
01-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
In December 2015, world leaders convened in Paris to adopt a historic agreement to limit carbon pollution and adapt to the effects of climate change. The promise of the agreement lies in the fact that it establishes a framework to drive progress, requiring successive national goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prescribing ongoing national submissions on climate resilience. It defines a new era of multilateral climate action. Successive national goals, however, are insufficient for the success of the agreement, even if they are increasingly ambitious. Success requires implementation, and implementation requires investment. A fundamental shift in finance flows will be necessary to achieve climate resilience and carbon neutrality on a global scale. Finance for adaptation to climate change is a particular concern, as it historically has trailed finance for emissions reductions by a large margin. Whereas the private sector provides the majority of global renewable energy investment, there is comparatively limited evidence of private investment in resilience efforts, which partly explains the imbalance. In Paris, nations showed an unprecedented recognition of the adaptation challenge. Despite their sometimes marked differences, countries coalesced around a common set of values—that adaptation and adaptation finance should be elevated; that the needs of the most vulnerable regions and populations should be prioritized; and that nonstate actors should be engaged to the greatest extent possible in the global climate effort. These values are reflected not only in the agreement itself, but also in a wave of commitments from both governments and the private sector. There are therefore grounds for guarded optimism that the Paris era could come to represent a collective pivot toward more adequate levels of resilience finance for the developing countries that are most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. This brief examines the gap in adaptation finance that must be bridged in order to fulfill the values of the Paris agreement, with a focus on regions such as Southeast Asia that are at particular risk from the effects of climate change. It also discusses new adaptation finance commitments from governments and the private sector; the landscape of existing adaptation finance channels and initiatives onto which these commitments build; and the undiminished role of developed countries—such as the United States, Japan, EU countries, and others—to facilitate an increase in adaptation finance as the Paris era begins.
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, Finance, and Paris Agreement
Political Geography:
Global Focus

5. A Critical Year for Humanitarianism

Author:
John Norris and Carolyn Kenney
Publication Date:
02-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
2015 was a remarkable year for international diplomacy and multilateralism, culminating in two major compacts on climate change and the global development agenda: The Paris agreement on climate and the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals. In 2016, international efforts will focus on an area that will likely prove even more contentious and where the international system is fraying badly under the weight of current crises: the system of providing humanitarian relief around the globe in response to both man-made and natural disasters. Throughout 2016, world leaders and other international actors are set to participate in a number of high-level meetings and discussions to assess the state of humanitarian assistance. Their efforts will seek to improve the delivery of aid and address myriad underlying issues, ranging from how best to protect civilians in war zones to the effect of climate change on forced migration. The global scope of forced migration has already risen to severe levels, with most forecasts suggesting that the worst is yet to come. According to U.N. estimates, some 60 million people are now forcibly displaced, either as refugees, internally displaced persons, or asylum seekers. This is the highest level of forced migration the international community has faced since World War II, and the rate of displacement does not appear to be waning. This issue brief spells out the timeline of major upcoming events related to the humanitarian agenda in 2016 and discusses the scope of the major challenges the international community faces, including a lack of resources, repeated patterns of deliberate attacks on civilians, and a caseload that continues to expand rapidly. It also explores some of the issues that will likely prove most difficult to resolve given the current approach to reform, in which major structural changes—particularly to the U.N. system that helps deliver humanitarian aid—are largely off the table. Despite the enormous difficulties ahead, growing the number of actors involved in addressing humanitarian crises is the likely path to success.
Topic:
Climate Change, Development, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Sustainable Development Goals, and Multilateralism
Political Geography:
Global Focus

6. From Negotiation to Fulfillment: The First U.N. Climate Conferences of the Paris Era

Author:
Peter Ogden, Gwynne Taraska, and Ben Bovarnick
Publication Date:
04-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
An idiosyncrasy of the international negotiations under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC, is that its annual Conference of the Parties, or COP, is hosted by a different country each year. The host country serves as the COP president and takes the lead both in shaping the broader themes of the session and in managing the mechanics of the negotiation process. Naturally, each host country wants to preside over a successful conference and leave its mark on the process going forward. Last year’s host, France, left quite a mark: a new international agreement to address climate change. This year—in which Morocco assumes the role of COP president—will be different. When countries convene in the city of Marrakech in early November 2016, they will do so with far less of the fanfare that surrounded last year’s Paris conference—and without the need to negotiate a new agreement. Morocco has indicated that it perceives this year’s COP to be part of a trilogy that began at the COP hosted in Lima, Peru, in 2014. Hakima El Haite, Moroccan minister delegate to the minister of energy, mining, water, and environment, has claimed that “Lima is the COP [of] negotiations, Paris is one of decisions,” and COP 22 “will be the Action Conference.” However, COP 22 will not only be the final installment of the COP trilogy that El Haite envisioned, but also the first COP in a long line of conferences focused on the implementation of the Paris agreement. Morocco therefore has the opportunity to establish a successful model for future COPs faced with this task.
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, International Cooperation, United Nations, and Paris Agreement
Political Geography:
Global Focus

7. Food Security and Climate Change: New Frontiers in International Security

Author:
Tom Daschle and Michael Werz
Publication Date:
04-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
In 2010, President Barack Obama’s National Security Strategy, or NSS—the periodic planning document that assesses the risks facing the country and outlines the United States’ response—for the first time recognized climate change as a security threat. The document noted that, “The danger from climate change is real, urgent and severe,” arguing that “[t]he change wrought by a warming planet will lead to new conflicts over refugees and resources.” The framing of the threat was exceptionally strong for the carefully worded NSS document; previous strategy documents in 2006 and 2002 mentioned climate change only briefly in the context of spending on new technology and natural disasters. The 2010 acknowledgment of new, nontraditional threats linked to climate change marked a turning point in the security community’s thinking about these issues. Over the past six years, analysts have accelerated their study of how these changes may affect international institutional architecture and shape geopolitical power. However, the international community still finds itself in largely uncharted waters, which requires new analytical approaches, data and mapping tools, and academic studies. But already, this nascent field points to the need to fundamentally rethink how our foreign and security policies intersect with access to water, agricultural production, food markets, transportation networks, and development projects.
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, International Cooperation, and Food Security
Political Geography:
Global Focus

8. Agriculture and the Paris Agreement

Author:
CAP Energy and Environmental Team
Publication Date:
05-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
Today, the effects of climate change on domestic agriculture are felt through events such as droughts, wildfires, heavy downpours, and greater occurrences of pests. Emissions of greenhouse gases from agricultural processes amount to 9 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and have increased 11 percent since 1990. Thus, as the United States moves forward with the rest of the world to respond to climate change, the agriculture sector will face the dual challenge of reducing emissions and enhancing resilience to climate change. This will require more sustainable agricultural practices—often referred to as climate-smart agriculture. This fact sheet describes how the recently established Paris climate agreement relates to the agriculture sector, along with the opportunities that climate-smart agriculture presents.
Topic:
Agriculture, Climate Change, Environment, and Paris Agreement
Political Geography:
Global Focus