The CIFs—a pair of multilateral climate finance funds designed to help developing countries pilot low-carbon, climate-resilient development—have been called a “living laboratory” for climate finance. Because they are one of the largest international climate finance funds and have been in operation for six years, other emerging funds can learn from their experiences. In particular, the Green Climate Fund (GCF)—which is expected to become the main vehicle for securing and distributing global climate finance—can benefit from the lessons coming out of the CIFs experience. We provide a few takeaways that provide lessons for the GCF.
While the climate change debate continues in some quarters in Washington, the impact of sea-level rise cut across political divides at the “Rising to the Challenge” conference in Norfolk, Virginia, earlier this week. Members of Congress and Virginia mayors from both political parties joined military and state and local officials to discuss the challenges sea level rise presents to the Hampton Roads area, as well as how to promote federal, state and local action.
“We cannot afford to do nothing, it is time to act,” Mayor Sessoms said, underscoring that the impacts of climate change are not a political issue, but a backyard issue threatening communities in Virginia.
Ricardo Lagos, former President of Chile 2000-2006 and Festus Mogae, former President of Botswana 1998 -2008, co-authored this blog post as members of the High Level Advisory Committee to the Climate Justice Dialogue. They offer three decisive reasons for immediate and substantial capitalization of the Green Climate Fund.
U.S. climate action received support yesterday from four former EPA administrators who served Republican presidents. William D. Ruckelshaus, Lee M. Thomas, William K. Reilly, and Christine Todd Whitman testified before the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee at a hearing entitled “Climate Change: The Need to Act Now.”
They delivered a clear message for Congress: Climate change is one of the greatest threats to America’s economy, environment, and communities—and it need not be a partisan issue.
After the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, Japan halted all existing nuclear operations and significantly scaled back its 2020 emissions-reduction target. As Japan revises its energy policy over the next few years, officials will decide the future of the country’s energy mix—and its climate action.
New research reveals that Japan can likely go beyond its emissions-reduction target with existing initiatives, but needs to pursue more ambitious action in the long-term to truly overcome the climate change challenge.
Nearly 400 people gathered in New York City last week for Courage to Lead, WRI’s biennial award and fundraising event. The luncheon raised almost $700,000 in unrestricted funding and honored two business leaders, WRI Board chairman Jim Harmon and Citi Foundation president Pamela Flaherty.
But we don’t host this event just to raise money. We see it as a way to bring together leaders from business, government, and philanthropy; explore innovative solutions; and inspire our hundreds of attendees.
After nearly two weeks of UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations in Bonn, the pathway to Paris and the new international climate agreement to be agreed there at the end of 2015 is beginning to emerge.
At this mid-year negotiating session held between the annual summits that take place in December, climate negotiators began to discuss key issues, particularly the framework for the national offers that individual countries will make (their “intended nationally determined contributions”).
An Overview of the Current Policy Landscape
In 2013, in the aftermath of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster, the government of Japan put forth a revised target to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 3.8 percent from 2005 levels by 2020.
This paper analyzes this target and finds that Japan can likely meet it by...
As governments and citizens look for ways to reduce the risks they face from climate change, one option at their disposal is the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) process developed under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Heather McGray draws on her experience at the Experts Meeting on the NAP Technical Guidelines in Tanzania to explain key features of the NAP process.
On Monday, the Environmental Protection Agency announced its Clean Power Plan, the first time the United States has set standards to limit carbon pollution from existing power plants. The Plan sets emissions reduction goals for individual states; once the goals are finalized next year, states will develop plans to achieve the necessary reductions. EPA’s modeling indicates that the standards will reduce national carbon pollution from power plants by 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.