Connect with us

Finance

Rich nations failed to meet $100 bn climate finance promise in 2022: Oxfam

Published

on

Rich nations failed to meet 0 bn climate finance promise in 2022: Oxfam

Illustration: Binay Sinha


Rich countries falsely claimed that they provided nearly $ 116 billion in climate finance to developing countries in 2022, while the actual financial support given was not more than $ 35 billion, according to global non-profit organization Oxfam International.


At the 2009 UN climate conference in Copenhagen, rich nations pledged to provide $ 100 billion annually from 2020 to help developing countries mitigate and adapt to climate change. However, delays in achieving this goal have eroded trust between developed and developing nations and have been a continual source of contention during annual climate negotiations.


In May, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) said that developed countries had met the long-standing $ 100-billion-a-year promise by providing nearly $ 116 billion in climate finance to developing countries in 2022.

Advertisement


However, nearly 70 per cent of this money was in the form of loans, many of which were provided at profitable market rates, adding to the debt burden of already heavily indebted countries.


“Rich countries have again effectively short-changed low- and middle-income countries by as much as $ 88 billion in 2022,” Oxfam said.


Oxfam estimated that the “true value” of climate finance provided by rich countries in 2022 is as little as $ 28 billion and no more than $ 35 billion, with at most only $ 15 billion earmarked for adaptation, which is crucial for helping climate-vulnerable countries address the worsening impacts of the climate crisis.


This discrepancy between financial promises and reality continues to undermine the trust needed between countries and is materially vital, as climate action in many countries depends on this climate finance, it said.

Chiara Liguori, Oxfam GB’s Senior Climate Justice Policy Advisor, said: Rich countries have been short-changing lower income countries for years by doing climate finance on the cheap. Claims that they are now on track with their financial promises are overstated, with the real financial effort much lower than the reported figure seems to suggest.”
Advertisement

Oxfam’s figures reflected climate-related loans as their grant equivalents, rather than at their face value, in order to gauge rich countries’ real financial effort.


The organisation also accounted for the difference between loans at market rate and those at preferential terms, while also considering the overly generous claims about the climate-related significance of these funds.


Low- and middle-income countries should instead get most of the money in grants, which also need to be better targeted toward authentic climate-related initiatives that will help them adapt to the impacts of the climate crisis and move away from polluting fossil fuels,” Liguori said.


At the moment they’re being penalized twice. First, by the climate harm they did little to cause, and then by paying interest on the loans they’re having to take to deal with it.


Oxfam said its estimates are based on original research by INKA Consult and Steve Cutts using the latest OECD climate-related development finance datasets for 2021 and 2022. Figures are rounded to the nearest 0.5 billion.

Advertisement


According to new data from the OECD, rich countries claimed they mobilized $ 115.9 billion in climate finance for Global South countries in 2022. Nearly $ 92 billion of the reported amount was provided as public finance, with 69.4 per cent of public finance provided as loans in 2022, up from 67.7 per cent in 2021.


According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the funds required for adaptation in developing countries are estimated to be between $ 215 billion and $ 387 billion per year this decade.


Climate finance will be at the centre of the UN climate conference in Baku, Azerbaijan, where the world will reach the deadline to agree on the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) the new amount developed nations must mobilize every year starting 2025 to support climate action in developing countries.


However, a consensus on NCQG will not be easy.


Some rich nations argue that countries with high emissions and higher economic capacities, such as China and petro-states that classify themselves as developing countries under the Paris Agreement, should also contribute to climate finance.

Advertisement


Developing countries, however, cite Article 9 of the Paris Agreement, which states that climate finance should flow from developed to developing nations.


Developed countries want the funds to prioritize nations most vulnerable to climate impacts, such as the least developed countries and small island developing states. Developing countries assert that they all deserve support.


Developing nations also demand clarity on what constitutes climate finance, insisting that development finance should not be counted as climate finance and that funds should not be provided as loans, as has happened in the past.

(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

First Published: Jul 11 2024 | 9:57 PM IST

Advertisement

Finance

Donating Stock Instead of Cash Is the 2-for-1 Deal You’ll Love at Tax Time

Published

on

Donating Stock Instead of Cash Is the 2-for-1 Deal You’ll Love at Tax Time

For many families, the holiday season comes with familiar rituals: untangling last year’s Christmas lights, decorating the tree and rediscovering ornaments we swore we’d organize “better next year.”

Charitable giving should feel just as joyful and natural — but for many households, it’s also a moment when good intentions collide with inefficient habits.

Continue Reading

Finance

Aerodrome Finance Hit by ‘Front-End’ Attack, Users Urged to Avoid Main Domain

Published

on

Aerodrome Finance Hit by ‘Front-End’ Attack, Users Urged to Avoid Main Domain

Aerodrome Finance, a leading decentralized exchange on Coinbase’s Base network with $400 million in total value locked, was targeted in a front-end attack late Friday, prompting urgent warnings for users to avoid its primary domains.

The incident appears to be a DNS hijacking of Aerodrome’s centralized domains, which allowed attackers to reroute users to lookalike phishing sites designed to trick them into signing malicious wallet transactions to separate them from their funds. Users are advised to instead rely on Aerodrome’s decentralized domains. Aerodrome has asked My.box, the domain provider, to contact them over a potential exploit of their systems.

These attacks do not compromise the underlying smart contracts, which manage user funds and protocol logic on-chain. At the time of writing, it’s unconfirmed whether the attack has led to any losses or how many users have been affected. Liquidity pools and protocol treasuries remain intact, according to Aerodrome.

Aerodrome’s team has been posting real-time updates on X, urging users not to access the compromised domains, aerodrome.finance and aerodrome.box, and instead use decentralized ENS mirrors like aero.drome.eth.limo. To reduce risk, the team recommends revoking recent token approvals using tools like Revoke.cash and avoiding signing any transactions from unverified domains.

New attack

Aerodrome has experienced similar front-end attacks before, including two in late 2023 that resulted in approximately $300,000 in user losses.

Advertisement

This latest attack comes just days after Aerodrome announced a merger with Velodrome, consolidating liquidity across Base and Optimism under the new “Aero” ecosystem. Despite the disruption, the AERO token price remained stable at around $0.67, up 2% over the last 24 hours.

The investigation is ongoing.

Continue Reading

Finance

Incredible year-long spending experiment exposes mistakes you’re probably making

Published

on

Incredible year-long spending experiment exposes mistakes you’re probably making
The forthcoming book follows her journey of one year without buying anything new and how it changed her relationship with money and her self-worth. (Source: Emma Edwards/Instagram)

Financial behaviour specialist Emma Edwards, founder of The Broke Generation, is sharing her radical personal finance experiment: a whole year without buying a single item of clothing.

No new outfits, no second-hand finds, not even rentals. What began as a no-buy challenge soon became a powerful lesson in self-worth, resilience, and the surprising freedom of living with less.

In the exclusive extract below, Emma shares the six buying patterns we get trapped into thinking we actually need.

RELATED

The impact of our consumption habits creates an environment where we’re cornered from every angle. We have a collection of clothes that don’t work together, don’t make us feel good and don’t allow us to express ourselves the way we want to, which leaves us looking externally for what we’re not getting. The problem is, when we look externally, we buy more and more of the same.

Advertisement

Unravelling that idea of what can happen when we’re in a ‘yes’ state, a state of openness to consumption even though our intentions might suggest otherwise, got me curious about some of the unhelpful buying cycles I’d been stuck in. I really leaned into understanding how I ended up with the wardrobe I currently had, and what I could learn from the mistakes I made over and over again.

I realised that if I could establish the mistakes I was making and the ways I was buying the wrong things, I’d stop feeling compelled to buy more and more over time. Here are some of the patterns I uncovered in my wardrobe, and that I’ve seen in others’ too.

Once I liked something in one colour (often black), I’d giddily run out and buy it in another colour, thinking I was making some kind of ultra-smart decision and capitalising on what I loved. I’m going to give you a piece of advice now that I hope you’ll remember for many years. If you ever utter the words ‘I’m going to go and get this in another colour’ – run. It’s a trap. You probably won’t like the other colour, and it’ll just sit in your wardrobe and collect dust.

There are certain things in my wardrobe that I struggled to wear confidently outside of one specific outfit silo. Usually, this is a sure-fire sign that I’d bought it in a very specific context, like copying or replicating an outfit I’d seen someone else wear.

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending