2016-updates of national per capita GDP(ppp-$) from ‘World Bank‘ is now available in ‘Calculation (Excel)‘. The world’s average per capita GDP(ppp-$) grew from $15,668 in 2015 to 16,136 in 2016 (3.0% growth). The diagram below shows the development in per capita GDP(ppp-$) 2000-2016 of the world’s five largest per capita emitters of CO2 from Fossil Fuel and cement: Qatar, Trinidad and Tobago, Kuwait, Bahrain and Brunei; in comparison with the world average.
Indicator update: Climate change financing as share of Climate Debt, by country (Climate Funds Update)
‘Climate Funds Update‘ is providing information on finance for developing countries to address climate change. Around $26 billion has currently been funded (money deposited; data from October 2016), of which 96% is country-sourced. If all sources of income are included¹, then the funds amount to $30 billion, of which 81% is country-sourced. The country-sourced climate finance has increased by 25% since June 2016 (in eight months). The previous seven month the increase was 24%.
The table below shows: 1) the current Climate Debt per capita in ClimatePositions, 2) the per capita climate change financing (funding) to developing countries and 3) the climate financing as share of the Climate Debt. The table includes 35 countries with both climate change financing and Climate Debt in ClimatePositions. Note that only countries with full data in ClimatePositions are included.
The diagrams below show the per capita CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel (without bunkers) and cement, annually since 2000, of India and Russia. The green bars show the Free Emission Level¹ – the exceedance is the basis for calculating the national Climate Debt. The world’s 3rd and 4th largest CO2-emitters were responsible for 6.5% (India) and 4.9% (Russia) of global emissions in 2015. India’s per capita emissions were 1.7 tons in 2015 (preliminary), which was 4.0% above the 2014-level.
The diagrams below show the per capita CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel (without bunkers) and cement, annually since 2000, of China and the United States. The green bars show the Free Emission Level¹ – the exceedance is the basis for calculating the national Climate Debt. The world’s two largest CO2-emitters were responsible for 29% (China) and 15% of global emissions in 2015.
Apparently, China’s per capita emissions have peaked, while the moderate reduction-rate 2006-2012 of the United States, has flattened out.
Nobody knows how high the costs of global warming will be in the future. However, ‘Studies’ predict a total of $369 trillion by 2200, assuming that humans will have stopped emitting greenhouse gases from burning Fossil Fuels around 2100 and atmospheric CO2 concentrations will have reached 700 ppm. The calculations include accelerating release of methane from melting permafrost (13% of the total costs).
ClimatePositions calculates the ‘Climate Debt’, accumulated since 2000, for 148 countries with full data. The global Climate Debt amounted to $0.8 trillion in 2005, $2.6 trillion in 2010 and around $6.0 trillion in 2015 (preliminary estimate). The diagram below illustrates the accumulated Climate Debts (red dots) “smooth climbing” towards the predicted costs of $369 trillion by 2200 (black dot) … all speculatively of course!
Given that the United Kingdom (UK) has decided to leave the European Union (EU), the following examines the development of CO2 Emissions, Ecological Footprint, GDP(ppp-$) and Climate Debt of the UK in comparison with EU.
Between 1860 and 1890 the UK was the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter and as late as 1966 the UK was still the 4th largest emitter. See this ‘Interactive timeline of the world’s top 20 emitters‘. When it comes to CO2 Emissions from fossil fuels (without bunker fuels) and cement production the UK was the world’s 15th largest emitter in 2014 (preliminary).
Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines accuses Shell, BP, Chevron, BHP Billiton, Anglo American and 42 other carbon companies of breaching people’s fundamental rights to life, food, water, sanitation, adequate housing and self-determination
According to ‘The Guardian’ the Filipino government body ‘Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines‘ have given the world’s largest oil, coal, cement and mining companies 45 days to respond to a ‘legal complaint (pdf, 65 p)‘ that their greenhouse gas emissions have violated the human rights of millions of people living in the Philippines.
The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights explicitly call on companies to respect human rights, and there are three scenarios in which a company can be hold responsible for adverse impacts on human rights, quote: “(1) it may cause impacts through its own activities; (2) it may contribute to impacts through its own activities, either directly or through some outside entity (government, business, or other); and (3) it may be involved in impacts caused by an entity that is directly linked to its business operations, products, or services.”
[Modified version posted 17 June 2016] ‘Climate Funds Update’ is an independent website providing information on climate finance designed for developing countries to address climate change. The data is based on information received from 25 multilateral, bilateral, regional and national climate funds and the funding is largely up to date by the end of May 2016. A total of $21 billion has currently been funded (money deposited), of which around 95% is country-sourced. The global climate finance has increased by approximately 24% since October 2015 (in seven months). The table below shows the Climate Debt per capita in ClimatePositions, the per capita climate financing (funding) to developing countries and the climate financing as share of the Climate Debt.
The table includes 35 countries with both climate financing and Climate Debt in ClimatePositions (only countries with full data in ClimatePositions are included).
‘Climate Funds Update’ is an independent website providing information on climate finance designed for developing countries to address climate change. The data is based on information received from 25 multilateral, bilateral, regional and national climate funds and the funding is largely up to date by the end of June 2015. A total of $17 billion has currently been funded (money deposited), of which 96% is country-sourced¹. The updated table below shows the level of national climate financing to developing countries, as percentage of the accumulated Climate Debt. The values are based on the latest available updates.
Prior to COP21 in Paris in December twenty countries most at risk from the effects of global warming has formed ‘The Vulnerable Twenty Group (V20)’. Unified, the new group hopes for greater access to climate finance for adaptation and mitigation. The twenty countries representing almost one-tenth of the world’s population are: Bangladesh, Philippines, Ethiopia, Vietnam, Tanzania, Kenya, Afghanistan, Nepal, Ghana, Madagascar, Rwanda, Costa Rica, Bhutan, Timor-Leste, Maldives, Barbados, Vanuatu, Saint Lucia, Kiribati and Tuvalu. The first thirteen on the list have full data in ClimatePositions and they are all Contribution Free (no Climate Debt) among 147 countries (see the ‘ranking’). The last seven are examined below in terms of climate change performance.
Norway’s first oil field started production in 1971 and since 1996 petroleum revenue has been transferred to what’s now called the ‘Government Pension Fund Global’ – often referred to as Norway’s Oil Fund. Today, the fund’s market value is around $884 Billion. For comparison, the updated Norwegian Climate Contribution in ClimatePositions is $16.4 Billion and the climate financing¹ $1.5 Billion. Below are listed some perspectival per capita figures:
- The current market value of Norway’s Oil Fund is around $188,000 per capita (per Norwegian). In 2000 the market value was $11,000 per capita.
- The accumulated Climate Contribution in ClimatePositions is $3,490 per capita.
- The climate financing is $321 per capita (9% of the Climate Contribution which is world record; read this ‘article‘).
- The updated Climate Debt is $3,169 per capita which ranks Norway 15th in the world (see the ‘ranking’).
- The oil production per capita was 6th in the world in 2013, after Qatar, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Equatorial Guinea – in 2000 Norway was 2nd. Norway’s oil production decreased by 46% between 2000 and 2013 … the world production increased by 17% during the same period.
- The natural gas production per capita was 4th in the world in 2012, after Qatar, Trinidad and Tobago and Brunei. Norway’s natural gas production increased by 106% between 2000 and 2012 … the world production increased by 37% during the same period.
The following examines Norway’s CO2 Emissions, Climate Debt over time, GDP(ppp-$) and the investment strategy of Norway’s Oil Fund.
The independent website ‘Climate Funds Update’ provides information on international climate finance initiatives designed to help developing countries address the challenges of climate change. By comparing the present climate funding (money deposited¹ by January 2015) to the accumulated national Climate Contributions (climate debt) in ClimatePositions the mismatch between climate debt and payments are exposed. The 82 countries in the table below are ranked by Climate Funding (financing) as percentage of the Climate Contributions … 48 of the countries have paid zero!
The first diagram shows the nuclear power generation per capita of the two countries. The Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan in 2011 has caused a remarkable shutdown of generation – while CO2 Emissions from the burning of petroleum, coal and natural gas have increased (from 2011 to 2012 respectively by 6%, 5% and 3%) to close the energy gap. Nuclear power generation produce dangerous radioactive waste to deal with for thousands of future generations (10,000 to 250,000 years) and in ClimatePositions nuclear power is not accepted as a national CO2 Emission reduction instrument (read ‘more’). The following analyzes the indicator trends of Japan and South Korea.
When the necessary climate change financing is secured on a global scale (in our dreams) the paid Climate Contributions must be spent wisely and fair … but how and decided by whom? Well, the incriminated nations that burned fossil fuels excessively for decades knowing that it destroys the climate worldwide can’t be legitimate decision-making participants in the creation of a Global Climate Fund. Only Contribution Free countries can (including those who have paid their climate debt). The opposite seems to be the case in the everlasting and fruitless United Nations COP process.
Manmade climate change leads to increased frequency, intensity and duration of extreme weather events. The global losses due to climate change are of course impossible to quantify but the losses accumulated by global reinsurance companies¹ may provide a clue of the seriousness of the situation. The two diagrams below show statistics of ‘Swiss Re’ (see this ‘release’) and ‘Munich Re’ (from The World Bank Report ‘Building Resilience’). The overall picture is similar: Global losses due to extreme weather events have increased dramatically since the 1980s and are now around $150-200 billion annually.
Since dawn the United States has thwarted a binding global climate agreement – if necessary by the use of illegal spying on countries with opposing plans. The U.S. negotiating line is now the main track at the COP Summits and the rest is sadness. Now, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry says that climate change ranks among the world’s most serious problems, such as disease outbreaks, poverty, terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (more about his speech ‘here’). But how much money has the United States spent on the so called “war on terror”? … And how much addressing the climate change disaster?
If the United States reduced the CO2 Emissions produced inside its borders and the dirty productions as a competitive consequence moved to China (or elsewhere), the positive impact on the climate would vanish. This obvious dilemma can only be solved if both countries sign a binding climate agreement with solid and fair CO2 Emission targets – which the two countries reject (read more on their COP positions ‘here’). The position of the United States is particularly perverted: 1) Reduction-targets of national CO2 Emissions must be voluntary and 2) Investments in climate actions must be profitable. The bizarre U.S. vision is to create a new global commercial market for voluntary climate investments, a commercial market with parallels to the United States, the homeland of the climate chaos.
The negotiation process during COP19 in Warsaw in November 2013 was frustrating and largely fruitless and the following organizations and movements withdrew from the climate conference in protest: ‘Aksyon Klima Pilipinas‘, ‘ActionAid‘, ‘Bolivian Platform on Climate Change‘, ‘Construyendo Puentes‘ (Latin America), ‘Friends of the Earth‘ (Europe), ‘Greenpeace‘, ‘Ibon International‘, ‘International Trade Union Confederation‘, ‘LDC Watch‘, ‘Oxfam International‘, ‘Pan African Climate Justice Alliance‘, ‘Peoples’ Movement on Climate Change‘ (Philippines) and ‘WWF‘.
First step to understanding the inherent conflicts of interest in the COP process would be to examine the nature of the COP country groups (submission groups) – a detailed study of the complex negotiating proces is another matter.
‘Climate Funds Update‘ is an independent website that provides information on international climate finance initiatives designed to help developing countries address the challenges of climate change. The site is a joint initiative of the ‘Heinrich Böll Stiftung‘ and the ‘Overseas Development Institute‘.
Ecuador was the 68th worst performing country out of 145 in ClimatePositions 2010, but the Climate Contribution (debt) was entirely due to reductions in rainforest since 1990. The diagram shows the forest coverage in percent of the total area in 1990 (49.9%) and 2010 (35.6%). The total national Contribution (debt) was 626 million US$ in 2010.