For most G-7 countries, a larger coal footprint since Copenhagen

As the G-7 summit wrapped up last week, one of the highlights that emerged was German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s call for G-7 countries to commit themselves to the $100 billion needed to mobilize climate finance for developing countries. Ranking among the top climate aid donors, Germany is in a position to trumpet this invitation. According to project-level data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, climate aid from G-7 countries reached $15 billion in 2013. Of this amount, $4 billion came from Germany. But as Charlene Watson and Smita Nakhooda, research officer and research fellow, respectively, for climate and environment at the Overseas Development Institute, have pointed out, raising money is not the only task for G-7 countries. For efforts to combat climate change to become entrenched, an even more long-term look toward phasing out high-carbon investments has to be in place. For many G-7 countries, perhaps this is an even bigger challenge. An Oxfam report released in time for the G-7 summit shows that five of the G-7 countries — France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom — have increased their coal consumption since the 2009 U.N. Climate Change Conference, or the Copenhagen summit. Below, we take a closer look at both the Oxfam report and OECD data to assess the advances that G-7 countries have made in curbing coal consumption as well as the development finance for climate mitigation and adaptation from this group of countries in 2013, the latest year for which climate aid figures are available. Canada While Canada’s coal consumption since the Copenhagen summit has decreased, the federal government’s policy on retiring coal plants at the end of their useful life has lacked the teeth to blunt the impact on Canada’s increasing greenhouse gas emissions. In 2013, the bulk of Canadian climate aid that targeted both mitigation and adaptation — nearly $80 million — was channeled through the Asian Development Bank. This assistance, delivered through grants, focused on energy generation and supply. France France’s coal footprint increased only slightly since the Copenhagen summit, but a closer look at its activities abroad shows that its international coal consumption is seven times more than its domestic coal consumption. Ninety-five percent of French aid focusing on both mitigation and adaptation — or $221.7 million — was in the form of loans. Regional assistance for the Americas ($115.6 million) as well as climate aid for China ($66.4 million) and Morocco ($39.8 million) comprised this amount. Germany The increase in Germany’s coal consumption has been largely driven by what has come to be known as the dirtiest kind of coal: lignite. The construction of open-pit mines that produce lignite are threatening not just medieval towns across Europe, but also Germany’s progress toward meeting its target of reducing its 1990 emissions levels by 40 percent by 2020. Germany’s climate aid with both mitigation and adaptation objectives was mostly directed toward the public sector. Meanwhile, a huge chunk of Germany’s $515.2 million in aid for mitigation and adaptation — $495.4 million — was given in grants. General environment protection was the prominent priority of German climate grants, claiming $354.6 million of mitigation- and adaptation-geared assistance. Italy Given the absence of a policy to phase out coal and a lack of leadership from the Italian government to discourage coal consumption — Italy has allowed the establishment of new coal plants and given subsidies to coal, for example — Italy’s larger coal footprint since the Copenhagen summit is not too surprising. While not among the main players in climate aid, Italian assistance for both mitigation and adaptation was mostly in the form of grants, which made up $40.9 million of this kind of aid. Much of this assistance — $13.2 million — was channeled through recipient governments. Japan Even before the Fukushima disaster forced former Japan Prime Minister Naoto Kan to shut down the country’s nuclear power plants, Japan had already veered toward a more carbon-heavy route. With 52 new coal plants in the pipeline, Japan will likely further increase its coal consumption in the next few years. Recipient governments were the main channel of Japan’s climate aid for both mitigation and adaptation in 2013. Meanwhile, loans, which made up $153.7 million of mitigation and adaptation assistance, were the primary instrument of Japanese climate aid. With $153.7 million directed toward its Support Program to Respond to Climate Change, Vietnam is the biggest winner of climate assistance from Japan. United Kingdom The incentives put in place under U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron’s previous administration — capacity market subsidies for coal and weak carbon pricing policies, for example — have paved the way for an uncertain future for the end of coal generation in the United Kingdom. In 2013, the top recipient of U.K. climate aid for mitigation and adaptation was Nepal, which received $56.8 million. Climate assistance from the U.K. took the form of grants focusing on general environment protection. United States When former U.S. President George W. Bush proposed to build more than 200 new coal plants a decade ago, a grass-roots campaign not only opposed it, but also helped retire a third of the United States’ existing coal fleet. Pushback from the fossil fuel industry, however, hampers additional progress toward closing more of these coal plants. Listed as “not known” by the OECD, climate change aid from the United States does not have enough information to enable the OECD to mark activities as targeting either mitigation or adaptation. A closer look at U.S. President Barack Obama’s 2016 budget request for the Global Climate Change Initiative, however, still shows a tilt toward mitigation: adaptation activities received a $155.8 million request, while clean energy and sustainable landscapes programs got a combined $302.5 million request. Check out more insights and analysis for global development leaders like you, and sign up as an Executive Member to receive the information you need for your organization to thrive.