IPPR: UK should pay £20bn into UN climate fund
By Paul Homewood
h/t Dennis Ambler
The UK has made the fifth largest cumulative contribution to climate change, and therefore has a duty to offer more financial support to help poorer countries to decarbonise.
That’s according to think tank the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR), which has today released a new report arguing the UK’s foreign policy priority should be helping less developed nations cut their emissions.
It argues that the current way international cooperation is structured is failing to bring about an adequate response to environmental crises.
Ahead of crucial UN climate talks which begin in Madrid on Monday, the IPPR says the UK should commit £20bn to the UN’s Green Climate Fund up to 2030.
https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/3084341/uk-should-pay-gbp20-billion-into-uk-climate-fund-ippr?
The IPPR report does no clarify whether this £20bn should be in addition to our foreign aid budgets, which is fixed at 0.7% of GDP. But presumably they intend it to be extra money.
Looks like we need to grow another magic money tree!
The IPPR is very much a Labour think tank, even though it pretends to be independent for charitable status.
You have been warned.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Reblogged this on Climate- Science.press.
It’s always interesting how socialists & Greens wish to fritter-away other peoples’ money.
Please note, this could be our contribution towards the $100 billion per year that was promised under the Paris Accords – to start in 2020, I think. In my opinion, it was this massive annual payment from Western Europe and North America to the third world (including China and India) that triggered Trump’s withdrawal from Paris.
No-one seems to have mentioned it before. The Washington Post even said Trump was wrong and indicated it was $10 billion in a “Fact Check”. So much for the media holding politicians to account for “lying”! I pointed it out to them and they first denied it and then failed to reply!
Ken: re that $100 billion p.a., here’s what Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement says:
Nothing there about $100 billion p.a.. Nor does it arise from ‘existing obligations’.
Robin, I guess you know more about this than me, but I find under finance, article 54 the following: 54. Also decides that, in accordance with Article 9, paragraph 3, of the Agreement, developed countries intend to continue their existing collective mobilization goal through 2025 in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation; prior to 2025 the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris
Agreement shall set a new collective quantified goal from a floor of USD 100 billion per year, taking into account the needs and priorities of developing countries;
That’s where I got the $110 billion a year! It’s convoluted language, I agree, but it comes in prior to 2025? Please explain why it does not commit “developed nations” to contributing that sum – itself a “floor”?
Ken: the Paris Agreement (https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/paris_nov_2015/application/pdf/paris_agreement_english_.pdf) doesn’t have an Article 54. And nowhere does it mention $100 billion. It’s true that Decision 1/CP.21 ‘Adoption of the Paris Agreement’ contains a paragraph 53 that has the words you cite. But that Adoption document is not the Agreement and has no binding effect. What it says is that sometime between 2015 (the date when it was written) and 2025 it’s intended that ‘a new collective goal’ will be set. But that hasn’t happened yet.
Robin, I said you knew more than me on this…But article 9.1makes it clear that monies should pass from developed to developing countries, and the whole tenor of the article is to facilitate such transfers, particularly the last 9.9. So Paris said we should do it.
The adoption document says how much we should – $100 billion a year – and China and India have demanded that sum for themselves. Now the IPPR says we, the UK, should give them £20 billion between now and 2030.
So technically, you are correct, but in reality, we are under pressure to pay compensation for industrialising the planet, to the benefit of all (save some decline in biodiversity) because some believe the change will result in our destruction. The latter is far from obvious and is certainly not a sufficient reason for overthrowing our whole capitalist system., as some, e.g. ER, believe.
That, I think, is the most important response we should make to the IPPR, ER and the Greens, not to mention those who see us as under an obligation to fulfill the intent of the Paris Accords.
Ken: yes, there’s no doubt that Article 9.1 states that ‘financial resources’ shall be provided by developed to developing countries. But the quantum of those resources and in particular the sum of $100 billion p.a. does not appear in any document binding at international law. Maybe one day it will as the Adoption document indicates – but that day hasn’t arrived yet. Certainly the West is under pressure. But, unless a new President brings the US back into the Agreement, I can’t see how the West – essentially just Western Europe – giving in to that pressure.
The origin of the $100 billion is interesting. It goes back to a statement by Hillary Clinton after the collapse of the UN climate conference in Copenhagen in 2009. See this NYT report: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/12/17/17climatewire-hillary-clinton-pledges-100b-for-developing-96794.html.
Note her comment:
.
That’s a qualification that seems to have been lost somewhere along the way. And here’s what she added:
This “promise” was enshrined in the (non-binding) “Copenhagen Accord: https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/l07.pdf. Here’s the relevant text:
Looking back to Clinton’s remarks, it’s clear what “meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation” meant i.e. actions by major developing countries such as China and India to accept binding verifiable commitments. And that of course hasn’t happened and seems unlikely to happen.
Suggest that the IPPR open a “fund me” site and send what they collect to the various kleptocrats around the world. That way the good citizens of the UK are sparred this nonsense expense, and the UN goofs are cut out of the process. Winners all around.
Of course if the UK has 20 Billion extra £ laying around please send 1% to me and with the rest, do what you want.
I am inspired by corbyn and I think we should pledge £200 million a year plus 1 trilIon trees.
I did of course mean 200 million a week
I raise you 2 trillion trees….
In the words of Toby Keith, “I wish I didn’t know now what I didn’t know then.” Schemes such as the Paris Climate Accord and foreign aid in general are vast slush funds. A lot of that money is funneled back to the politicians and influential folks. That is a reason Trump pulled us out of Paris AND why he is skeptical of so-called “foreign aid.”
Just like the US aid to Ukraine that magically found its way back to the Bidens! But dont investigate a corrupt former VP – that will get the investigator of corruption impeached!
bobn: They will regret trying to impeach President Trump for being honest. What will come out in a Senate trial will expose the real corruption. And the President will be acquitted. These folks in the House are insane.
Off topic but German car manufacturers are shedding staff and using the savings to pursue the development of electric vehicles.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/11/29/mercedes-benz-owner-slash-10000-jobs/?li_source=LI&li_medium=li-recommendation-widget
How happy will the ex-employees be about being sacrificed at the altar of CC.
And we all know there is huge demand for battery powered cars – not! You have to feel sorry for the car companies as the next level of EU emissions level can only be offset by selling something nobody wants to buy. As from January Volvo promised no new normal car designs so it will be interesting to see how long they continue with what they have already.
This is serious stuff given the IQ of all the UK main party leaders; they will be only too willing to contribute in order to be seen saving the planet including Boris, egged on by his dad and girlfriend.
And so, in ‘saving the planet’, they will be opening the door to the very antithesis of their own political beliefs. They surely cannot be that naive? (rhetorical Q)
Do we get a massive rebate for our massive contribution to greening the planet and increasing food production?
China want their share of the $100 billion promised by the Paris Accord. One can only just shake ones head and give it a shake🥴
The problems regarding the climate has its genesis in the actions of Canadian Maurice Strong, who organized the fateful 1992 Rio Conference and the hoax of CC, and his dream of World Government by the UN. A quote from Maurice Strong–‘Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized nations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?’ How better to accomplish the collapse then to create mass hysteria proselytized by the willing dupes in our education system that CO2 is going to destroy the world because allegedly it will cause the temperature to go up 3*C. Are you kidding? 3*C
The politics behind the IPCC is not about Climate according to the UN policy makers – is all about redistribution of wealth which is a necessary step to realize Strong’s dream. The IPCC has admitted that Climate is not a problem, but, is a tool to be used for redistribution of our wealth through taxation of carbon as a start.
The third world, where China plays a prominent role, demand $100 Billion/yr. indefinitely. They reject any oversight as to how the money would be spent. Trump, thankfully, put the kibosh on that and this spawned the international Trump Derangement Syndrome of which the Beeb is the UKs representative.
Given the UN’s roaring success in solving relatively minor issues like Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Kashmir, etc, we should all look forward to the golden age that’s coming.
With the UN’s success in sorting out Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Kashmir, etc, what’s to be scared of?
We really do seem to have our morals in a mess! What is worse, to do something which you did not know was wrong, or to do the same knowing it was wrong?
Evan (bleeding heart) Davies on PM tonight (which he has ruined post-Eddie Mair) was fronting a piece tonight on the usual Friday ‘climate strikes’ and a reporter went to see a load of green agitators to find out what they wanted from government. A (young) woman interviewed answered, we need to break the capitalist system and get back to a communist state, etc etc. I so wanted the reporter to ask her to name any communist state of similar size to the UK that has made a success of it dogma and ensured the citizens of such a state live a fulfilling life with all the benefits enjoyed by the current inhabitants of UK. But BBC reporters aren’t that sharp – or they don’t want to rock the boat.
But the CO2 increased crop yield worldwide so that is a huge benefit and no damage has yet been seen from any temperature increase.
.
IPPR, another one of bliar’s baybees and thus is, utterly devoted to all that is the EUand it follows, are diehard adherents of the great green scam.
If they advise or recommend owt, I deem precisely to contrary to be far nearer to the truth.
This their Charity Commission entry:
https://beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?regid=800065&subid=0
IPPR produces cutting edge research and innovative policy ideas for a more just, democratic and sustainable world.
They were given “advice” by the Charity Commission a couple of years ago:
Click to access ocr_institute_for_public_policy_research.pdf
“The commission received a complaint that the charity had supported a political party, which is inconsistent with charity law and our guidance on political activity and campaigning.In particular it was alleged that the charity had worked closely with the Labour Party in producing its ‘Condition of Britain’ report and had undertaken a research commission from a Shadow Secretary of State relating to jobseeker’s allowance.
The ‘Condition of Britain’ report was launched by Mr Ed Miliband at an event in London with a key note speech which was widely covered in the media.”
Ed Miliband is currently co-chair with Caroline Lucas of the IPPR Environmental Justice Commission: https://www.ippr.org/environment-and-justice/commissioners/
Reblogged this on ECO-ENERGY DATABASE.
The IPPR (happy to have never heard of it / them) must be made up of very, very stupid people. Mostly proto-marxists to boot. Why on earth do we have to read their ill-considered effluent ?
Because they have political influence and if by some miracle, Corbyn were elected, they would be driving policy.
@dennisambler November 30, 2019 10:51 am
thanks for that link Dennis –
from it I see in the IPPR “The Commission” website –
“About the Commission –
“Set out the bold policy action required for the UK to deliver its contribution to tackle climate change and wider environmental breakdown, cutting emissions to net zero in an economically and socially just way”
“The commission will seek to engage with politicians and policymakers of all political parties, experts and academics, civil society, workers and trade unions, businesses and business groups, local government and communities, and climate activists. The commission will also seek the views of the public, using a participative model of engagement including the possible use of ‘citizens juries’”
some names from the “The Commission”
“Angela Francis – Chief Advisor, Economics and Economic Development at WWF-UK”
“Fatima Zahra-Ibrahim – Campaigner and climate activist”
“Anna Taylor – Student climate striker and activist”
“Farhana Yamin – Associate Fellow at Chatham House, founder Track 0 and Extinction Rebellion activist”
also like the jobs section –
“Internships
We offer internship opportunities throughout the year, and seek to ensure that these are open to a wide range of candidates. As part of our commitment to encourage diversity and opportunity, all interns are paid the London Living Wage or its equivalent.
We are committed to equality of opportunity and we particularly welcome applications from sections of the community that are currently under-represented at IPPR, including disabled, black and minority ethnic candidates”
can that not be called discrimination?