Finance
Climate finance billions at stake at COP29
Rich nations will be under pressure at this month’s UN COP29 conference to substantially increase the amount of money they give to poorer countries for climate action.
But there is deep disagreement over how much is needed, who should pay and what should be covered, ensuring that “climate finance” will top the agenda at COP29 in Baku.
– What is climate finance? –
It is the buzzword in this year’s negotiations, which run from November 11 to 22, but there is not one agreed definition of climate finance.
In general terms, it is money spent in a manner “consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development”, as per phrasing used in the Paris Agreement.
That includes government or private money for clean energy like solar and wind, technology like electric vehicles, or adaptation measures like dykes to hold back rising seas.
But could a subsidy for a new water-efficient hotel, for example, be counted? It is not something the COP summits have addressed directly.
At the annual UN negotiations, climate finance has come to refer to the difficulties the developing world faces getting the money it needs to prepare for global warming.
– Who pays? –
Under a 1992 UN accord, a handful of rich countries most responsible for global warming were obligated to provide finance.
In 2009, the United States, the European Union, Japan, Britain, Canada, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, New Zealand and Australia agreed to pay $100 billion per year by 2020.
They only achieved this for the first time in 2022. The delay eroded trust and fuelled accusations that rich countries were shirking their responsibility.
At COP29, nearly 200 nations are expected to agree on a new finance goal beyond 2025.
India has called for $1 trillion a year and some other proposals go higher, but countries on the hook want other major economies to chip in.
They argue times have changed and the big industrialised nations of the early 1990s represent just 30 percent of historic greenhouse gas emissions today.
In particular, there is a push for China — the world’s largest polluter today — and the oil-rich Gulf countries to pay. They do not accept this proposal.
– What’s being negotiated? –
Experts commissioned by the UN estimate that developing countries, excluding China, will need $2.4 trillion per year by 2030.
But the line between climate finance, foreign aid and private capital is often blurred and campaigners are pushing for clearer terms that specify where money comes from, and in what form.
In an October letter to governments, dozens of activist, environment and scientific groups called on rich nations to pay developing countries $1 trillion a year in three clear categories.
Some $300 billion would be government money for reducing planet-heating emissions, $300 billion for adaptation measures and $400 billion for disaster relief known as “loss and damage” funds.
The signatories said all the money should be grants, seeking to redress the provision of loans as climate finance that poorer countries say compounds their debt woes.
Developed countries do not want money for “loss and damage” included under any new climate finance pact reached at COP29.
– Where will they find the money? –
Today, most climate finance aid goes through development banks or funds co-managed with the countries concerned, such as the Green Climate Fund and the Global Environment Facility.
Campaigners are very critical of the $100 billion pledge because two-thirds of the money was given as loans, not grants.
Even revised upwards, it is likely any new pledge from governments will fall well short of what is needed.
But this commitment is viewed as highly symbolic nonetheless, and crucial to unlocking other sources of money, namely private capital.
Financial diplomacy also plays out at the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the G20, where this year’s host Brazil wants to craft a global tax on billionaires.
The idea of new global taxes, for example on aviation or maritime transport, is also supported by France, Kenya and Barbados, with the backing of UN chief Antonio Guterres.
Redirecting fossil fuel subsidies towards clean energy or wiping the debt of poor countries in exchange for climate investments are also among the options.
COP29 host Azerbaijan, meanwhile, has asked fossil fuel producers to contribute to a new fund that would channel money to developing countries.
bl-np/rlp/rsc
Finance
Town Finance Director To Step Down In April
Nantucket’s municipal finance director Brian Turbitt has announced his resignation and will leave his position with the town on April 21st.
“With mixed emotion, I have submitted my resignation from the position of Town of Nantucket Director of Municipal Finance, effective April 21, to pursue an opportunity off-island,” Turbitt wrote in a message to the Current. “I have thoroughly enjoyed working with Town Manager Libby Gibson and her administration during the past 12 years and am extremely proud of all we have accomplished as a team. My time on Nantucket has been the experience of a lifetime, and one for which I am truly grateful and will never forget.”
Turbitt told the Current that despite his resignation, he will still attend the Annual Town Meeting in his current role on May 4th. Turbitt often presents and defends many of the town’s budget requests during the meeting, which falls just weeks after his scheduled departure date.
As the town’s chief financial officer, Turbitt oversees the town’s budget, guiding the $170 million operation. Turbitt has been with the town since 2014, but his 12-year tenure will end next month.
Finance
300 years of wars show they are ‘always disaster times’ for holders of government debt because of inflation and financial repression | Fortune
Government bonds, especially Treasuries, have long been seen as a safe haven during recessions, geopolitical calamities, and other market-moving disasters that create uncertainty.
But after looking at 300 years of U.S. and U.K. history, the Center for Economic Policy Research found that wars and pandemic-scale emergencies have pummeled holders of debt.
“The historical evidence reveals a striking pattern: government bonds have repeatedly generated substantial real losses during these extreme episodes,” authors Zhengyang Jiang, Hanno Lustig, Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh, and Mindy Xiaolan wrote. “They have even underperformed equities and real estates which are traditionally regarded as risky assets.”
That’s because wars typically triggered large increases in government spending, averaging about 7% of GDP annually during the first four years, and tax hikes alone were rarely sufficient for financing needs, they added.
The finding comes as the U.S. is waging war on Iran while the national debt has exploded to $39 trillion. The Pentagon is seeking more than $200 billion in a budget request for the conflict, sources told the Washington Post.
Across their dataset, the CEPR authors calculated that bondholders suffered average real losses of roughly 14% during the first four years of conflicts. The losses were so steep that they reduced the real value of government debt outstanding.
To add insult to injury, cumulative bond returns were more than 20% below the cumulative returns on stocks and real estate, the opposite of how those assets perform during financial crises or recessions.
“Whenever there is a major war, we observe a sharp decline in the bond performance — wars are always disaster times for bondholders,” they warned. “Similarly, the bondholders also suffered large losses during the ‘war on Covid-19.’”
Center for Economic Policy Research
A key factor in bond losses is inflation, according to CEPR, which said the cumulative rate averaged about 20% in the first four years of wars.
In fact, during the current U.S.-Israel war on Iran, Treasuries and government debt from other countries have sold off sharply as surging oil prices have raised expectations for elevated inflation while budget deficits are also seen worsening. Since the war began three weeks ago, the U.S. 10-year yield has soared more than 40 basis points.
But profligate spending wasn’t the only way inflation weighed on bonds. The think tank said it was often the result of policy choices to reduce debt burdens without explicitly defaulting, such as by suspending gold standard commitments.
Another reason bonds perform so poorly during wars is so-called financial repression, or government policies that curb borrowing costs by influencing financial markets. That prevents bond yields from keeping pace with inflation.
For example, the Federal Reserve implemented yield-curve control, capped Treasury rates, and launched massive bond buying during World War II.
CEPR’s findings have particular relevance for U.S. debt as Treasuries continue to form the foundation of the global financial system with the dollar serving as the world’s reserve currency.
That status has allowed the U.S. to borrow more cheaply than investors would otherwise allow. Meanwhile, the interest on U.S. debt is now the fastest-growing budget item and is already at $1 trillion a year. CEPR said its report presents governments with an important tradeoff.
“Protecting taxpayers from large spending shocks may require shifting part of the burden onto bondholders through inflation or financial repression,” it said. “Economic theory suggests that such policies may be optimal when taxation is highly distortionary. However, they also reduce the safety of government debt and may raise borrowing costs over time if investors anticipate these risks.”
Finance
Bay Area gas prices near $4: The mental toll on drivers and financial strain on small businesses
Gas prices reach $4 in Bay Area
The rising cost of gas isn’t just hurting your commute because the cost to transport inventory and the cost of goods goes right up with it. FOX 13’s Ariel Plasencia reports
TAMPA, Fla. – According to new data from AAA, average gas prices in Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, and Sarasota Counties are currently sitting just pennies below $4 a gallon.
In Citrus County, the average has already crossed that threshold, according to data.
The pain at the pump is becoming impossible to ignore for Bay Area drivers, and the rising costs are creating a ripple effect that is also hitting local small businesses hard.
Why you should care:
Why does that $4 mark trigger such a strong reaction from drivers?
“We have a bias towards round numbers. It’s why companies set prices at $9.99 instead of $10,” University of Tampa microeconomist Aaron Wood, who studies consumer behavior, said. “We have these reference points, these anchors in our brain. We use these heuristics to make consumption decisions.”
Wood, an associate professor of economics at UT, told FOX 13 it comes down to how our brains process the expense.
READ: Florida hospital sues to evict patient who refuses to leave for months
“When you’re standing there, pumping your own gas, you see the rotation of the number and so it’s different than like, if the Netflix price goes up or your lawn service — even sometimes grocery prices — gas is more upsetting. You’re watching it happen as opposed to something being buried in your credit card statement. So I think it’s upsetting to everybody because it’s so visceral, and it’s in your face,” Wood added.
Local perspective:
But that rising price tag isn’t just hurting daily commuters: It’s forcing local business owners to make tough choices, too.
Chris Gonzalez has owned Mona’s Floral Creations in Tampa for seven years. He says fuel costs are constantly on his mind.
“I’ve actually started watching the news every morning just to see how much it’s gone up from the day prior,” Gonzalez said. “I think about it more and more, like not even daily. It’s almost like every few hours I have to think about it, because I try to pass along the best, most competitive prices to my consumer — not only in my flowers, but also in my delivery charges.”
READ: DeSantis halts Manatee County cruise terminal plans with new environmental bill
Mona’s has been serving the Tampa community for nearly 50 years. In the seven years Gonzalez has owned the shop, he has only had to raise his delivery prices twice, from $10 to $12, and then to $15, which is the current rate. Now, he’s unsure what he’ll have to charge next week.
Gonzalez says he hopes that if he does have to raise delivery prices again—potentially up to $18, it will only be temporary.
“I’m trying to be as competitive as possible and continue the Mona’s brand that people know and love around here,” Gonzalez added.
What’s next:
To cope with the surge, Gonzalez is making adjustments to his shop’s daily operations. Instead of delivering a floral arrangement immediately after it’s made, his team is now holding orders so they can group deliveries together based on geographical routes.
“It just makes more sense from a fuel perspective,” he noted.
READ: Hillsborough deputies dismantle $388K multi-state luxury car theft ring; 3 arrested
And with Mother’s Day right around the corner, Gonzalez said he will be closely watching the changes in gas prices.
“We are in planning mode right now. We’re ordering our flowers. We’re planning what types of arrangements we’re going to offer for sale for moms,” Gonzalez said. “But now I have that additional thing: I have to think about what’s the price of gas going to be like in two months when Mother’s Day’s here?”
The Source: This article was written with information gathered by FOX 13’s Ariel Plaencia.
-
Detroit, MI3 days agoDrummer Brian Pastoria, longtime Detroit music advocate, dies at 68
-
Oklahoma7 days agoFamily rallies around Oklahoma father after head-on crash
-
Nebraska1 week agoWildfire forces immediate evacuation order for Farnam residents
-
Georgia5 days agoHow ICE plans for a detention warehouse pushed a Georgia town to fight back | CNN Politics
-
Massachusetts1 week agoMassachusetts community colleges to launch apprenticeship degree programs – The Boston Globe
-
Alaska6 days agoPolice looking for man considered ‘armed and dangerous’
-
Southwest1 week agoTalarico reportedly knew Colbert interview wouldn’t air on TV before he left to film it
-
Michigan1 week agoMichigan-based Stryker hit with cyberattack