Decologue to combat “climate destruction”

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has said that this year 2024 has “taught a lesson in climate devastation.” The main objective of the UN Climate Change Conference being held in Baku (Azerbaijan) is to agree on financing formulas so that developing countries can reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the impacts of extreme weather. The independent group of experts advising the conference on the matter has estimated that poor countries need $1 trillion per year in climate finance by 2030. This is almost nine times more than is being allocated now. But what should that financing look like?

1. Current source

So far, investment in the sector comes from government budgets of rich countries, multilateral banks including the World Bank, and private banking funds. But large-scale action is needed to quickly raise the needed funds: an investment boost that can only be achieved by “leveraging all financial resources,” the group of experts said.

2. World Bank

Various voices are calling for reform of the World Bank to encourage investment in poor countries at risk of disasters. Providing guarantees for loans, delaying repayment of loans in the event of climate damage or reducing debt are some of the proposals. It could also provide more climate finance in its new replenishment round if donor countries agree. However, that perspective may have been hurt by the election of Donald Trump.

3. Multi-millionaire

The Working Group on the Global Solidarity Fee (experts from France, Kenya and Barbados who advise the Conference to find “innovative solutions”: GSLTF) proposes to introduce a coordinated minimum tax of 2% for billionaires. It could generate between $200 billion to $250 billion, impact only 100 households, and promote a fair global tax landscape. Oxfam Intermon says wealth is now less taxed than in previous decades and the carbon gap is widening as the world’s richest people indulge in luxury lifestyles with huge emissions.

4. Traveling frequently

This organization states that the 50 richest people in the world are, on average, responsible for releasing more emissions (investments, private planes, yachts…) into the atmosphere in just one and a half hours than one person. Average over your entire life. Policy options being considered include a levy on kerosene fuel, including private jet fuel, and a levy on luxury tickets and frequent flyers. These measures could generate between $19 billion and $164 billion annually, depending on their design and scope. Proponents say that flight taxation should take this fact into account (affecting mostly business and first class passengers).

“There are economic and moral arguments,” say the proposal’s promoters.

“There are both economic and ethical arguments for imposing a charge on air transport,” says a GSLTF spokesperson. Aviation accounts for 2% of global CO2 emissions, and the richest households make up the bulk of this impact.
Research shows that, in Western Europe, 35% of the richest families (with incomes over €100,000) take three or more round-trip flights a year, while only 5% of the poorest families (with incomes under €20,000 Income earners). In the US, flying a private jet is equivalent to the average emissions of one person in a year.
It added, “All the charges the task force is considering are for those who can afford them: private jets, first and business class flights, nonstop flights, and taxes on kerosene fuel.” For example, the Unitaid solidarity levy in France has raised more than €1 billion since its inception in 2006. “This is a shining example of how countries in the Global North and South can close the gap in global health spending while also increasing funds for the French treasury.”

5. Sea transport

Internationally it causes 2% of global emissions. It would be relatively easy to collect a small payment on their carbon emissions, as ships are subject to strict licensing. Shipping is regulated by the International Maritime Organization, a United Nations agency that has long been accused of dragging its feet on reducing the sector’s climate impact, but has only recently begun to take action. . Opponents of such a measure might argue that this burden would be passed on to consumers and would increase prices. But proponents argue that most of the world’s fleet is dedicated to transporting fossil fuels (liquefied natural gas and coal), so taxing them here would be another incentive to switch to clean energy.

6. Fossil Fuel

There are also discussions underway to implement taxes on fossil fuel extraction and extraordinary profits, with an increase in the minimum corporate tax rate for multinationals or a mixed means of taxes varying depending on the country. These companies have been blamed for global warming (they are involved in several lawsuits) and have made huge profits since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

7. Subsidy

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), subsidies for fossil fuel consumption worldwide will amount to $620 billion in 2023. These subsidies (money spent by governments to charge less) benefit agriculture, fishing and other industries with high emissions when using fossil energy. Some of this aid makes sense when it serves the livelihoods of those who must be protected so that energy does not become more expensive, but much of it is incentives for wasteful practices, such as overfishing in fossil energy. Underuse or overexploitation of water in agriculture, its proponents say.

8. carbon

If carbon dioxide is the culprit of the climate crisis, why not tax it directly? It is a way to abandon fossil fuels and adopt clean energy. Most countries already have some form of carbon tax, but it is not stated as such. Catalonia applies it to vehicles, but it has yet to be demonstrated that it encourages a clean economy. On the other hand, the EU emissions trading system is being seen as a success, setting rising prices for these rights for the CO2 that is not emitted (affecting 12,000 facilities and operators in the EU , and about 1,000 in Spain).

9. Financial Transactions

The Solidarity Levy Task Force (GSLTF) has proposed designing a global levy on stocks, bonds and financial derivatives. This requires a coalition of countries willing to support the measure and work toward global reconciliation. It may impose a 0.1% fee on stock and bond instruments and a 0.01% fee on derivative transactions.

10. Other

Cryptocurrencies are energy intensive – using vast decentralized networks of computers that verify blockchains and virtual ledgers). The group above proposes a tax of $0.045 per kWh, which could reduce emissions and generate $5.2 billion in revenue. It also calls for penalizing primary production of plastics ($60 to $90 per tonne of polymer) to raise $25,000 to $35,000 million annually. This would be a way to support action against plastic pollution.

Lawrence Tubiana

“There can be no climate justice without tax justice.”

The Paris Agreement advocates financial solidarity between developed and developing countries. The point is to allow all countries to gradually increase their national ambitions to achieve the goal of limiting temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius. “However, there can be no climate justice without tax justice, because all countries face the same challenge: how to drive change while ensuring that those with more resources and higher emissions pay their fair share. Get financed,” says Lawrence Tubiana, co-leader. Secretariat of the Working Group on Global Solidarity Actions and CEO of the European Climate Foundation.
The Working Group on the Solidarity Tax Levy intends to take its work to the spring meetings of the IMF and the World Bank in Washington DC in April 2025. There it will present its contribution on aviation, fossil fuels, maritime transport or financial transactions. , “From there our aim will be to generate political and diplomatic momentum to secure approval,” says a spokesperson. Similarly, this work will be taken to the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development in Seville in June/July 2025. Will be visited.
Tubiana says the intention is to have these options for a solidarity fee at the next Belém summit in Brazil. At COP30, proposals will be presented for a viable and scalable solidarity levy (worth €100 billion per year) supported by a coalition of committed countries.

read this also