Skip to main content

Home/ Comparative Politics/ Group items tagged net zero

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Kay Bradley

COP26: Key Outcomes From the UN Climate Talks in Glasgow  | World Resources I... - 0 views

  • The world still remains off track to beat back the climate crisis.  
  • ministers from all over the world agreed that countries should come back next year to submit stronger 2030 emissions reduction targets with the aim of closing the gap to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees
  • Ministers also agreed that developed countries should urgently deliver more resources to help climate-vulnerable countries adapt to the dangerous and costly consequences of climate change that they are feeling already —
  • ...46 more annotations...
  • curb methane emissions,
  • halt and reverse forest loss,
  • align the finance sector with net-zero by 2050
  • ditch the internal combustion engine
  • accelerate the phase-out of coal,
  • end international financing for fossil fuels,
  • “Not nearly enough” to the first question, “yes” to the second. 
  • 151 countries had submitted new climate plans (known as nationally determined contributions, or NDCs)
  • To keep the goal of limiting temperature rise to 1.5 degrees C within reach, we need to cut global emissions in half by the end of this decade.
  • these plans, as they stand, put the world on track for 2.5 degrees C of warming by the end of the century.
  • If you take into account countries’ commitments to reach net-zero emissions by around mid-century, analysis shows temperature rise could be kept to around 1.8 or 1.9 degrees C.
  • some major emitters’ 2030 targets are so weak (particularly those from Australia, China, Saudi Arabia, Brazil and Russia) that they don’t offer credible pathways to achieve their net-zero targets.
  • a major “credibility gap”
  • To fix this problem, these countries’ must strengthen their 2030 emissions reduction targets to at least align with their net-zero commitments. 
  • as well as ramping up ambition
  • the pact asks nations to consider further actions to curb potent non-CO2 gases, such as methane, and includes language emphasizing the need to “phase down unabated coal” and “phase-out fossil fuel subsidies.”
  • This marked the first time negotiators have explicitly referenced shifting away from coal and phasing out fossil fuel subsidies in COP decision text.  
  • this COP finally recognized the importance of nature for both reducing emissions and building resilience to the impacts of climate change,
  • Did Developing Countries Get the Finance and Support They Need? 
  • In 2009, rich nations committed to mobilize $100 billion a year by 2020 and through 2025 to support climate efforts in developing countries
  • developed countries failed to meet that goal in 2020 (recent OECD estimates show that total climate finance reached $79.6 billion in 2019).
  • The Adaptation Fund reached unprecedented levels of contributions, with new pledges for $356 million that represent almost three times its mobilization target for 2022. The Least Developed Countries Fund, which supports climate change adaptation in the world’s least developed countries, also received a record $413 million in new contributions.
  • COP26 also took steps to help developing countries access good quality finance options.
  • For example, encouraging multilateral institutions to further consider the links between climate vulnerabilities and the need for concessional financial resources for developing countries — such as securing grants rather than loans to avoid increasing their debt burden. 
  • COP26 finally put the critical issue of loss and damage squarely on the main stage
  • Climate change is already causing devastating losses of lives, land and livelihoods. Some damages are permanent — from communities that are wiped out, to islands disappearing beneath the waves, to water resources that are drying up.
  • Countries also agreed to operationalize and fund the Santiago Network on Loss and Damage, established at COP25 in Madrid, and to catalyze the technical assistance developing countries need to address loss and damage in a robust and effective manner.  
  • International Carbon Markets.
  • negotiators agreed to avoid double-counting, in which more than one country could claim the same emissions reductions as counting toward their own climate commitments.
  • his is critical to make real progress on reducing emissions.
  • Common Time Frames. In Glasgow, countries were encouraged to use common timeframes for their national climate commitments. This means that new NDCs that countries put forward in 2025 should have an end-date of 2035, in 2030 they will put forward commitments with a 2040 end-date, and so on.
  • Transparency. In Glasgow, all countries agreed to submit information about their emissions and financial, technological and capacity-building support using a common and standardized set of formats and tables.
  • 100 high-level announcements during the “World Leaders Summit"
  • including a bold commitment from India to reach net-zero emissions by 2070 that is backed up with near-term targets (including ambitious renewable energy targets for 2030), 109 countries signing up to the Global Methane Pledge to slash emissions by 30% by 2030, and a pledge by 141 countries (as of November 10) to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030 (backed by $18 billion in funding, including $1.7 billion dedicated to support indigenous peoples).  
  • Glasgow Breakthroughs, a set of global targets meant to dramatically accelerate the innovation and use of clean technologies in five emissions-heavy sectors:
  • power, road transport, steel, hydrogen and agriculture.
  • 46 countries, including the U.K., Canada, Poland and Vietnam made commitments to phase out domestic coal,
  • 29 countries including the U.K., Canada, Germany and Italy committed to end new direct international public support for unabated fossil fuels by the end of 2022
  • Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, led by Costa Rica and Denmark — with core members France, Greenland, Ireland, Quebec, Sweden and Wales — pledged to end new licensing rounds for oil and gas exploration and production and set an end date that is aligned with Paris Agreement objectives
  • Efforts were also made to scale up solar investment
  • new Solar Investment Action Agenda by WRI, the International Solar Alliance (ISA) and Bloomberg Philanthropies that identifies high-impact opportunities to speed up investment and reach ISA’s goal of mobilizing $1 trillion in solar investment by 2030.
  • Non-state actors including investors, businesses, cities and subnational regions also joined collective action initiatives aimed at driving economic transformation.
  • Over 400 financial firms which control over $130 trillion in assets committed to aligning their portfolios to net-zero by 2030
  • banks, asset managers and asset owners fully recognize the business case for climate action and the significant risks of investing in the high-carbon, polluting economy of that past.
  • 11 major automakers agreed to work toward selling only zero-emission vehicles globally by 2040, and by no later than 2035 in leading markets.  
  • In the year ahead, major emitters need to ramp up their 2030 emissions reduction targets to align with 1.5 degrees C, more robust approaches are needed to hold all actors accountable for the many commitments made in Glasgow, and much more attention is needed on how to meet the urgent needs of climate-vulnerable countries to help them deal with climate impacts and transition to net-zero economies.
Kako Ito

Public insurance and the least well-off | Lane Kenworthy - 6 views

  • Public insurance also boosts the living standards of the poor. It increases their income, and it provides them with services for which they bear relatively little of the cost.
  • Critics charge that public social programs tend to hurt the poor in the long run by reducing employment and economic growth. Are they correct?
  • Does public insurance erode self-reliance? Is a large private safety net as helpful to the least well-off as a large public one? Are universal programs more effective than targeted ones? Are income transfers the key, or are services important too?
  • ...17 more annotations...
  • Once again we see no indication that public insurance generosity has had a damaging effect
  • Note also that the employment rate increased in nearly all of the countries during this period. On average, it rose by nine percentage points between 1979 and 2013. That’s not what we would expect to see if generous public insurance programs were inducing large numbers of able adults to withdraw from the labor market
  • What we see in the chart is that countries with more generous public insurance programs tend to have less material deprivation.
  • With globalization, the advance of computers and robots, increased pressure from shareholders for short-run profit maximization, union weakening, and other shifts, wages have been under pressure. Couple this with the fact that many people at the low end of the income ladder have labor market disadvantages — disability, family constraint, geographic vulnerability to structural unemployment — and we have a recipe for stagnation in the market incomes of the poor.
  • here’s a good reason for these shifts: government provision offers economies of scale and scope, which reduces the cost of a good or service and thereby makes it available to many people who couldn’t or wouldn’t get it on their own.
  • Government provides more insurance now than it used to. All of us, not just some, are dependent on it. And life for almost everyone is better because of it
  • hese expenditures are encouraged by government tax advantages.22 But they do little to help people on the bottom of the ladder, who often work for employers that don’t provide retirement or health benefits.
  • To make them more affordable, the government claws back some of the benefit by taxing it as though it were regular income. All countries do this, including the United States, but the Nordic countries do it more extensively. Does that hurt their poor? Not much. The tax rates increase with household income, so much of the tax clawback hits middle- and upper-income households.
  • Another difference is that public services such as schooling, childcare, medical care, housing, and transportation are more plentiful and of better quality for the poor in the Nordic countries. Public services reduce deprivation and free up income to be spent on other needs. It’s difficult to measure the impact of services on living standards, but one indirect way is to look at indicators of material deprivation,
  • Targeted transfers are directed (sometimes disproportionately, sometimes exclusively) to those with low incomes and assets, whereas universal transfers are provided to most or all citizens.
  • Targeted programs are more efficient at reducing poverty; each dollar or euro or kroner transferred is more likely to go to the least well-off. Increased targeting therefore could be an effective way to maintain or enhance public insurance in the face of diminished resources.
  • “the more we target benefits to the poor … the less likely we are to reduce poverty and inequality.”
  • Korpi and Palme found that the pattern across eleven affluent nations supported the hypothesis that greater use of targeting in transfers yields less redistribution
  • The hypothesis that targeting in social policy reduces political support and thereby lessens redistributive effort is a sensible one. Yet the experience of the rich countries in recent decades suggests reason to question it. Targeting has drawbacks relative to universalism: more stigma for recipients, lower take-up rates, and possibly less social trust.44 But targeting is less expensive. As pressures to contain government expenditures mount, policy makers may therefore turn to greater use of targeting. That may not be a bad thing.
  • Public insurance programs boost the incomes of the least well-off and improve their material well-being. If such programs are too generous, this benefit could be offset by reduced employment or economic growth, but the comparative evidence suggests that the world’s rich nations haven’t reached or exceeded the tipping point.
  • Spending lots of money on social protection is not in and of itself helpful to the poor. Total social expenditures in the United States are greater than in Denmark and Sweden, because the US has a large private welfare state. But relatively little of America’s private social spending reaches the poor.
  • Public services are an important antipoverty tool. Their benefit doesn’t show up in income data, but they appear to play a key role in reducing material hardship. Services expand the sphere of consumption for which the cost is zero or minimal. And they help to boost the earnings and capabilities of the poor by enhancing human capital, assisting with job search and placement, and facilitating work-family balance.
  •  
    Through this article I have gained a deeper insight in how public expenditures and public goods promote wealth equality in a society. "Public services are an important antipoverty tool."
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    This article really helped me deepen my understanding of redistributing wealth downwards. I never thought about it, but things like social security, affirmative action programs, and public education are actually insurances that attempt to provide everybody with more equality when it comes to living standards as well as basic human rights.
  •  
    Yeah, it is a very common argument to say that social expenditures disincentives workers; interesting analysis on how wealthy countries haven't reached the "tipping point." I am curious to see what happens to labor force participation and employment in the next decades as robots further divorce economic growth from labor supply/demand.
  •  
    Cool theory in regards to "the tipping point". Interesting, and solid criticism of large social expenditures. Wonder how socialists view this, as opposed to free-market economists.
  •  
    "Public services are an important antipoverty tool. Their benefit doesn't show up in income data, but they appear to play a key role in reducing material hardship." INteresting to see the statistics and how social expenditures help reduce poverty and the wealth gap.
Kay Bradley

USA | Climate Action Tracker - 0 views

  •  
    For CoPo Climate Round Table
1 - 3 of 3
Showing 20 items per page