2016年-PIIE彼得森国际经济研究所_Delivering_on_US_Climate_Finance_Commitments_39页_2mb

Summary of "Delivering on US Climate Finance Commitments"

Core Content

This paper analyzes the political and economic challenges the United States faces in meeting its $100 billion climate finance commitment to developing countries, as outlined in the Copenhagen Accord (2009) and the Cancún Agreements (2010). The commitment is part of a broader international effort to address climate change, with the goal of mobilizing financial support for both mitigation (reducing emissions) and adaptation (adjusting to a warmer world) in developing countries by 2020.

The paper highlights that without a domestic cap-and-trade program or carbon tax, the United States finds it extremely difficult to raise new public funds for climate finance. It emphasizes the importance of leveraging limited public funds to stimulate private sector investment, particularly through bilateral credit agencies and multilateral development banks (MDBs).

Main Views

• The $100 billion goal is a joint effort by developed countries to support developing countries in climate action.
• The United States has traditionally been a major contributor to climate finance, but its ability to meet the pledge is constrained by its fiscal outlook and domestic political challenges.
• The Copenhagen Accord and Cancún Agreements established the financial commitment and laid the groundwork for a global climate framework, though the US has not yet enacted comprehensive climate legislation.
• The paper explores various methods for allocating the $100 billion pledge, including per capita income, per capita emissions, and historical responsibility.

Key Information

US Share of the $100 Billion Commitment

• Annex I (40 countries): Based on 2009 GDP, the US share would be $36.1 billion.
• Updated Annex I—High scenario (83 countries): The US share would decrease to $31.1 billion.
• Updated Annex II (34 countries): The US share would increase to $38 billion.
• Historical responsibility: The US is responsible for 19.1% of global temperature increase in 2009, translating to a financial commitment of $19.1 billion.

Direct Budget Contributions

• US direct budget contributions for climate finance have increased, but are expected to reach $2.8 billion in 2020 under the current fiscal plan.
• These contributions are primarily from the State Department, USAID, and core agencies (e.g., World Bank, GEF).
• The President's FY 2011 budget requested $1.9 billion, but subsequent budget cuts have reduced the level of support.

Carbon Revenue

• The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) and American Power Act (APA) were potential legislative vehicles for generating carbon revenue for international climate finance.
• Under ACES, 7% of allowances would be auctioned in 2020, generating $8.8–16.2 billion annually.
• Under APA, 0.75% of allowances would be used for international finance, with an additional 5% available if certain conditions are met, leading to a range of $1.15–12.7 billion in annual carbon revenue.
• A carbon tax could generate similar revenue but is not currently under serious consideration.

International Offsets

• The APA and ACES both included international offset mechanisms, which could allow the US to meet its climate finance goals through emission offsets.
• However, the paper notes that international offsets are not a realistic alternative without a functioning domestic carbon pricing regime.

Other Sources of Climate Finance

• The paper suggests that multilateral development banks (MDBs), such as the World Bank, could be used to expand climate finance efforts.
• Bilateral credit agencies (e.g., US Export-Import Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corporation) could also play a key role.
• Adaptation finance is more challenging to secure, and the best political option for the US is to focus on international aviation and marine transport agreements.

Conclusion

• The US has limited options for meeting its $100 billion climate finance pledge without a domestic carbon pricing mechanism.
• Direct budget contributions and carbon revenue are the most viable sources, but both are constrained by fiscal and political challenges.
• The paper underscores the need for a credible narrative on how the US can deliver its share of the pledge, especially if developing countries fulfill their mitigation and transparency commitments.
• The $100 billion pledge remains a compromise between developed and developing countries, and its success depends on international cooperation and domestic policy implementation.