Connect with us

Finance

Climate activists bemoan scant progress on finance as Cop29 looms

Published

on

Climate activists bemoan scant progress on finance as Cop29 looms

Finding the finance needed to stave off the worst impacts of the climate crisis will be “a very steep mountain to climb”, the UN has conceded, as two vital international conferences failed to produce the progress needed to generate funds for poor countries.

With less than five months to go before the Cop29 UN climate summit in Azerbaijan in November, there is still no agreement on how to bridge the near-trillion dollar gap between what developing countries say is needed and the roughly $100bn a year of climate finance that flows today from public sources in the rich world to stricken developing nations.

Rich countries have so far given little indication that they are rising to the challenge. The G7 summit of heads of state of the world’s richest countries, in Italy last weekend, skirted the topic of climate finance with warm words on the “importance of fiscal space and mobilising resources from all sources for increased climate and development action, particularly for low-income and vulnerable countries”.

Campaigners said the group’s promises to “work on a coordinated approach” were too vague and had little substance. Harjeet Singh, the global engagement director for the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, said: “The G7 nations have once again failed to fulfil their obligations in responding to the climate crisis. Wealthy countries bear significant responsibility to developing countries for the harm they’ve inflicted through years of extractive exploitation of resources and the consequent impacts caused by climate change. They owe trillions of dollars annually to hundreds of millions of people suffering and dying from climate impacts.”

Sima Kammourieh, the programme lead at the thinktank E3G, said: “The G7 leaders failed to present the full-fledged, structured and specific economic and financial action plan that is needed for global climate safety. At this juncture, more is needed than menus of options or high-level frameworks.”

Advertisement

Last Thursday, an exhausting fortnight-long meeting of ministers and officials in Bonn, the UN’s climate headquarters, ended with similarly scant concrete result. Mohamed Adow, the director of the Power Shift Africa thinktank, warned that without finance, developing countries could not hope to reduce their emissions and cope with the impacts of the climate crisis. He said: “Developing countries are expected to slay the climate dragon with invisible swords, having got zero assurances on the long term finance they need.”

Simon Stiell, the UN’s climate chief, warned: “We can’t keep pushing this year’s issues off into the next year. The costs of the climate crisis – for every nation’s people and economy – are only getting worse.”

The failures have bruised already fragile hopes of reaching a global settlement that would provide the funds needed for poor countries to cut their greenhouse gas emissions and cope with the impacts of worsening extreme weather.

At Azerbaijan this November, at this year’s conference of the parties (Cop) summit under the UN framework convention on climate change, governments are supposed to agree a new framework for climate finance and a “new collective quantified goal” that would set out how much rich countries should provide to the poorest, and how the money should be collected and spent.

Research by economists Nicholas Stern and Vera Songwe in 2022 suggested about $2.4tn would be needed annually to tackle the climate crisis by developing countries excluding China. Of that sum, about $1.4tn could come from countries’ domestic budgets, leaving about $1tn to come from climate finance sources, such as the World Bank and other development banks.

Advertisement

Developed countries largely agree that such sums are needed, but they are resistant to the suggestion from some developing countries that it should all come from their taxpayers. Instead, they would like to see some come from the private sector, and some from other sources, such as the carbon markets, or “innovative” measures such as levies on fossil fuels, on frequent fliers or on international shipping.

skip past newsletter promotion

They also point to the fact that rich petrostates such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and United Arab Emirates have no obligation to contribute to climate finance, nor do countries with burgeoning economies that are still classed as developing, including China, South Korea and Singapore.

Advertisement

But there is no clarity over how any new forms of finance could be brought to bear. At the Bonn conference, the prospect of some form of levy on fossil fuels was floated but Saudi, UAE and some others were resistant to the idea even being discussed.

While Bonn provided a little clarity on some technical issues, there was little political common ground. In Stiell’s words: “We have left ourselves with a vast amount to do between now and the end of the Cop.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Finance

German finance minister wants to scrap spousal tax splitting

Published

on

German finance minister wants to scrap spousal tax splitting

Last weekend, several thousand people took to the streets in Munich to demonstrate against abortion and assisted suicide. One speaker made an extremely dramatic plea against what he called the “culture of death” that has allegedly taken hold in Germany. One sign of this, the speaker argued, was that the government is planning to abolish a regulation known as “spousal tax splitting.”

Is tax law really relevant to deep philosophical debates on the sanctity of life? It is even a matter of life and death at all? Surely we needn’t go that far? In any case, the intense political uproar surrounding the new debate on whether to abolish spousal tax splitting is notable, even by today’s standards of populist outrage.

An advantage for couples with widely divergent incomes

The row was sparked by Germany’s vice chancellor and finance minister, Lars Klingbeil, of the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), who said he wanted to abolish and replace the joint taxation of spouses’ income, a system that has been in place since 1958.

How exactly does spousal tax splitting work? In Germany, married couples (and since 2013, couples in civil partnerships), can choose to have their income assessed jointly by the tax authorities.

It means that the taxable income for both spouses together is halved – as if both partners had each earned an equal half of the income. Their tax liability is then determined by simply doubling the income tax due on one half.

Advertisement

As people who earn more pay higher taxes in Germany, this system benefits couples where one partner (and often this is still the man) earns significantly more than the other (in practice often the woman).

Lars Klingbeil
Lars Klingbeil thinks spousal splitting is outdated and costs the state too muchImage: Bernd von Jutrczenka/dpa/picture alliance

Costs of up to €25 billion per year

If for example one partner earns €60,000 ($70,512) a year and the other partner earns nothing, the couple will be taxed as if they earned €30,000 each. In this example, the couple would save nearly €5,800 in taxes per year compared to the amount they would owe if both partners filed their taxes separately. According to the Finance Ministry, spousal tax splitting costs the government a total of up to €25 billion annually.

Some critics have long viewed splitting as a tool to keep women out of the labor market, because the more a woman earns, the larger her tax burden becomes. Klingbeil seems to agree, arguing on ARD television in late March that the system was “out of step with the times.” The spousal splitting system reflects “a view of women and families that is completely at odds with my own,” he said.

Chancellor Merz said to be in favor of splitting

On Monday of this week, Klingbeil got some surprising support on this from Johannes Winkel, head of the youth wing of the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU).

“Given the demographic reality, the government should create incentives to ensure that both partners in a relationship are employed,” Winkel told the Funke Media Group. “In the future, tax relief should primarily be granted to married couples when they are facing hardships related to raising children.”

Advertisement

But the chancellor is a vocal skeptic of the proposal. “I am not convinced by the claim that joint filing for married couples discourages women from working,” Friedrich Merz said at a conference organized by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper. “Marriage is a relationship based on shared income and mutual support. And in a marriage, income must be treated as a joint income for tax purposes, not separately.”

Berlin under pressure to fix pensions, health care and taxes

To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video

Klingbeil’s alternative plan

At around 74%, the labor force participation rate for women in Germany is one of the highest in Europe, but half of them work part-time.

Klingbeil’s idea is to replace the existing system with a more flexible approach: Both partners would be able to distribute tax-free income among themselves in such a way that it minimizes their tax liability. This would allow the couple to continue enjoying a tax advantage, albeit not to the same extent as before. And whether one partner earns more than the other would become less important.

However, it remains to be seen whether Klingbeil will be able to push through his proposal. Aside from Germany, similar regulations offering tax benefits to couples exist in Poland, Luxembourg, Portugal and France.

Advertisement

This article was originally written in German.

Continue Reading

Finance

Departing inspector general targets Council Office of Financial Analysis

Published

on

Departing inspector general targets Council Office of Financial Analysis

The $537,000-a-year office created in 2014 to advise the City Council on financial issues and avoid a repeat of the parking meter fiasco has failed to deliver on that mission, the city’s chief watchdog said Tuesday.

Days before concluding her four-year term, Inspector General Deborah Witzburg said a shortage of both adequate staff and financial information closely held by the mayor’s office prevents the Council’s Office of Financial Analysis from helping the Council be the the “co-equal branch of government” it aspires to be.

In a budget rebellion not seen since “Council Wars” in the 1980s, a majority of alderpersons led by conservative and moderate Democrats rejected Mayor Brandon Johnson’s corporate head tax and approved an alternative budget, including several revenue-generating items the mayor’s office adamantly opposed.

But Witzburg said the renegades would have been in an even better position to challenge Johnson if only their financial analysis office had been “equipped and positioned to do what it’s supposed to do” — provide the Council with “objective, independent financial analysis.”

“We are entering new territory where the City Council is asserting new, independent authority over the budget process. It can’t do that in a meaningful way without its own access to financial analysis,” Witzburg told the Chicago Sun-Times.

Advertisement

Chicago Inspector General Deborah Witzburg’s latest report focuses on the Chicago City Council’s Office of Financial Analysis.

Jim Vondruska/Jim Vondruska/For the Sun-Times

But the Council’s financial analysis office, she added, “has never been equipped or positioned to do what it needs to do. It needs better and more independent access to data, and it needs enough staff to do its job. It has a small number of employees and comparatively limited access to data.”

Advertisement

The inspector general’s farewell audit examined the period from 2015 through 2023. During that time, the financial analysis office budget authorized “either three or four” full-time employees. It now has a staff of five .

Witzburg is recommending a staffing analysis to identify how many people the financial office really needs — and also recommending that the office “get data directly” from other city departments, “ rather than having it go through the mayor’s office.”

The audit further recommends that the office develop “better procedures to meet their reporting requirements” in a timely manner. As it stands now, reports are delivered “sometimes late, sometimes not at all,” the inspector general said.

“We find that those reports have been both not timely and not complete in terms of what they are required to report on and that those reports therefore have provided limited assistance to the City Council in its responsibility to make decisions about the city’s budget,” she said.

The Council Office of Financial Analysis responded to the audit by saying it hopes to add at least three full-time staffers in the short term and has made “some progress” over the last three years in improving their access to data, but not enough.

Advertisement

The office was created in 2014 to provide Council members with expert advice on fiscal issues.

For nearly two years the reform was stuck in the mud over whether former 46th Ward Ald. Helen Shiller had the independence and policy expertise to lead the office.

Shiller ultimately withdrew her name, but the office was a bust nevertheless. In an attempt to breathe new life into it, sponsors pushed through a series of changes.

Instead of allowing the Budget chair alone to request a financial analysis on a proposal impacting the city budget, any alderperson was allowed to make that request.

The office was further required to produce activity reports quarterly, not just annually.

Advertisement

Now former-Budget Chair Pat Dowell (3rd) then chose Kenneth Williams Sr., a former analyst for the office, as director and gave him the “autonomy” the ordinance demanded.

Two years ago, a bizarre standoff developed in the office.

Budget Committee Chair Jason Ervin (28th) was empowered to dump Williams after Williams refused to leave to make way for a director of Ervin’s own choosing.

The standoff began when Williams said he was summoned to Ervin’s office and told the newly appointed Budget chair was “going in a different direction, and I’m putting you on administrative leave” with pay.

“He took all my credentials and access away. I would love to come to work. I wasn’t allowed to come to work,” Williams said then.

Advertisement

Williams collected a paycheck for doing nothing while serving out the final days remainder of a four-year term.

Ervin’s resolution stated the director “may be removed at any time with or without cause by a two-thirds” vote or 34 alderpersons. He chose Janice Oda-Gray, who remains chief administrator.

Continue Reading

Finance

Reilly Barnes Returns to Little League® as Purchasing/Finance Assistant

Published

on

Reilly Barnes Returns to Little League® as Purchasing/Finance Assistant

Little League® International has announced that Reilly Barnes accepted a new role as Purchasing/Finance Assistant, effective April 6, 2026. Barnes transitions from a temporary Purchasing Assistant to this full-time position to assist in the year-round demands of purchasing for the organization, as well as the region and Little League Baseball and Softball World Series tournaments. 

“We are thrilled to welcome back Reilly to our team as a full-time Purchasing/Finance Assistant. Reilly’s prior experience, time management, and attention to detail make him an invaluable asset to the purchasing team,” said Nancy Grove, Little League Materials Management Director. “We look forward to the positive contributions he will have on our organization.” 

In this role, Barnes will be responsible for processing purchase requisitions, coordinating souvenir products, and tracking order fulfillment. He will also assist with evaluating suppliers, reviewing product quality, and negotiating contracts for effective operations.  

After most recently working as a Logistician Analyst at Precision Air in Charleston, South Carolina, Barnes, a Williamsport native, returns after honing his skills in the fast-paced environment. Prior to his time at Precision Air, Barnes served as a Procurement Specialist at The Medical University of South Carolina, where his expertise and knowledge were instrumental in supporting both education and healthcare needs.  

“I am thrilled to return to Little League in this full-time role,” said Barnes. “Coming back to my hometown and having the opportunity to work for an organization that has played such a special part of my upbringing means a lot. I can’t wait begin this new opportunity.” 

Advertisement

Barnes graduated from the University of Pittsburgh in 2022 with a B.A. in Supply Chain Management, Finance, and Business Analytics.  

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending