The US, China and India oppose efforts to use charges on shipping fuel to funnel money into a United Nations climate aid fund, according to Greenpeace’s Martin Kaiser.
The Obama administration and Basic group of negotiating countries that also includes South Africa and Brazil say funds must come from national budgets rather than charges on shipping fuels, Kaiser, head of international climate politics for Greenpeace, said in an interview today.
A draft UN proposal at talks in Durban, South Africa, called for funds raised by actions to be taken by the International Maritime Organization to cut maritime fuel emissions to be channeled into both the UN’s mooted Green Climate Fund and into providing compensation to developing nations whose companies are affected by the extra shipping costs.
The IMO is considering an emissions-trading system or global levy as a way to lower emissions blamed for climate change.
The draft proposal released in Durban earlier this week marked the first potential private source of income for the fund, which Christiana Figueres, the UN diplomat leading the discussions, has said is a key outcome the negotiations ending today need to agree on. Industrialized nations have pledged to raise $100 billion a year by 2020 to help vulnerable nations adapt to climate change and reduce emissions.
“Given the financial crisis and budgetary crisis of many industrialized countries, the only way to fill up the climate fund is through this mechanism,” Greenpeace’s Kaiser said.
“There’s a broad alliance saying it has to come from national budgets rather than from reliable mechanism but given the financial crisis and the budgetary crisis of many industrialized countries, the only way to fill up the green climate fund is through” this mechanism.
US lead negotiator Todd Stern yesterday declined to comment on the issue of shipping fuels and climate finance proposals in Durban. He said he is optimistic progress will be made on establishing the fund countries agreed to at UN talks last year.
