Estimates of how much the world needs to spend annually to mitigate climate change range as high as $2.4 trillion. The United States, responsible for a quarter of both historical emissions and present global GDP, should arguably cover hundreds of billions of this cost. Yet the U.S. Government spent only $13.2 billion in climate change funding in 2017, combining domestic spending and foreign aid. The pledged U.S. Contribution to the Green Climate Fund, a multilateral financing mechanism for climate mitigation and adaptation in the Global South, is only $3 billion (and only a third has been delivered, the remainder suspended by the Trump administration).
To create a powerful political narrative in support of fair U.S. Contributions, it’s critical to frame them as compensation, not charity—in effect, a form of reparations. Some of this compensation must also take the form of technology.
But private intellectual property claims ultimately rely on publicly produced knowledge, and there is no justification for letting them get in the way of climate action abroad. For example, research funded through government programs, such as the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), has been a major driver of the falling costs of renewables, because open-ended, early-stage research is often not profitable enough to attract private sector funding.
Another obstacle posed by neoliberal free trade and investment agreements is investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions, which subject a country’s domestic regulations (including environmental protections) to legal challenges by corporations. Disputes are heard by unelected panels of trade “experts” whose decisions are final. In effect, corporations can block governmental climate action that interferes with trade. After Canada issued a moratorium on fracking in the St. Lawrence basin, for example, U.S. Oil and gas company Lone Pine Resources sued Canada under NAFTA; the case is ongoing.
The White House rolled out all the flourishes of a state visit for South Korean President Lee to celebrate the new trade agreement, passed by Congress on Wednesday, and to discuss a strategy to denuclearize North Korea. Margret Warner reports.
Continue watching
Most people are probably not aware of the extraordinary level of protectionism that benefits doctors and, to a lesser extent, other highly paid professionals in our own country. And we pay a huge price for this protectionism.
Continue reading
But private intellectual property claims ultimately rely on publicly produced knowledge, and there is no justification for letting them get in the way of climate action abroad. For example, research funded through government programs, such as the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), has been a major driver of the falling costs of renewables, because open-ended, early-stage research is often not profitable enough to attract private sector funding.
Another obstacle posed by neoliberal free trade and investment agreements is investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions, which subject a country’s domestic regulations (including environmental protections) to legal challenges by corporations. Disputes are heard by unelected panels of trade “experts” whose decisions are final. In effect, corporations can block governmental climate action that interferes with trade. After Canada issued a moratorium on fracking in the St. Lawrence basin, for example, U.S. Oil and gas company Lone Pine Resources sued Canada under NAFTA; the case is ongoing. The United Nations ISDS case database shows that 74 of 972 ISDS cases have been filed by fossil fuel extraction companies (about 7.6 percent), and another 173 by utilities, which include fossil fuel power and distribution companies (though also many renewable energy companies).
Estimates of how much the world needs to spend annually to mitigate climate change range as high as $2.4 trillion. The United States, responsible for a quarter of both historical emissions and present global GDP, should arguably cover hundreds of billions of this cost. Yet the U.S. Government spent only $13.2 billion in climate change funding in 2017, combining domestic spending and foreign aid. The pledged U.S. Contribution to the Green Climate Fund, a multilateral financing mechanism for climate mitigation and adaptation in the Global South, is only $3 billion (and only a third has been delivered, the remainder suspended by the Trump administration).
To create a powerful political narrative in support of fair U.S. Contributions, it’s critical to frame them as compensation, not charity—in effect, a form of reparations. Some of this compensation must also take the form of technology. Much of renewable energy tech, however, is patented by private companies—from Tesla to IBM—protected under intellectual property provisions in free trade agreements that allow them to charge higher prices and licensing fees.
Estimates of how much the world needs to spend annually to mitigate climate change range as high as $2.4 trillion. The United States, responsible for a quarter of both historical emissions and present global GDP, should arguably cover hundreds of billions of this cost. Yet the U.S. Government spent only $13.2 billion in climate change funding in 2017, combining domestic spending and foreign aid. The pledged U.S.
To create a powerful political narrative in support of fair U.S. Contributions, it’s critical to frame them as compensation, not charity—in effect, a form of reparations. Some of this compensation must also take the form of technology.
In effect, corporations can block governmental climate action that interferes with trade. After Canada issued a moratorium on fracking in the St. Lawrence basin, for example, U.S. Oil and gas company Lone Pine Resources sued Canada under NAFTA; the case is ongoing.
Estimates of how much the world needs to spend annually to mitigate climate change range as high as $2.4 trillion. The United States, responsible for a quarter of both historical emissions and present global GDP, should arguably cover hundreds of billions of this cost. Yet the U.S. Government spent only $13.2 billion in climate change funding in 2017, combining domestic spending and foreign aid. The pledged U.S.
To create a powerful political narrative in support of fair U.S. Contributions, it’s critical to frame them as compensation, not charity—in effect, a form of reparations. Some of this compensation must also take the form of technology. Much of renewable energy tech, however, is patented by private companies—from Tesla to IBM—protected under intellectual property provisions in free trade agreements that allow them to charge higher prices and licensing fees.
But private intellectual property claims ultimately rely on publicly produced knowledge, and there is no justification for letting them get in the way of climate action abroad. For example, research funded through government programs, such as the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), has been a major driver of the falling costs of renewables, because open-ended, early-stage research is often not profitable enough to attract private sector funding.
Another obstacle posed by neoliberal free trade and investment agreements is investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions, which subject a country’s domestic regulations (including environmental protections) to legal challenges by corporations. Disputes are heard by unelected panels of trade “experts” whose decisions are final. In effect, corporations can block governmental climate action that interferes with trade. After Canada issued a moratorium on fracking in the St. Lawrence basin, for example, U.S. Oil and gas company Lone Pine Resources sued Canada under NAFTA; the case is ongoing.
Margret Warner reports.
Continue watching
Estimates of how much the world needs to spend annually to mitigate climate change range as high as $2.4 trillion. The United States, responsible for a quarter of both historical emissions and present global GDP, should arguably cover hundreds of billions of this cost. Yet the U.S. Government spent only $13.2 billion in climate change funding in 2017, combining domestic spending and foreign aid. The pledged U.S.
To create a powerful political narrative in support of fair U.S. Contributions, it’s critical to frame them as compensation, not charity—in effect, a form of reparations. Some of this compensation must also take the form of technology.
Another obstacle posed by neoliberal free trade and investment agreements is investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions, which subject a country’s domestic regulations (including environmental protections) to legal challenges by corporations. In effect, corporations can block governmental climate action that interferes with trade. After Canada issued a moratorium on fracking in the St. Lawrence basin, for example, U.S. Oil and gas company Lone Pine Resources sued Canada under NAFTA; the case is ongoing.
Thanks buzziova
