Wealthy countries have fallen short of promises to fund climate solutions in lower-income nations, putting the Paris Agreement at risk. Meanwhile, these same high-income countries are calling for stronger climate pledges ahead of the next round of negotiations at the upcoming 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties. But global emissions have risen since the Paris Agreement’s signing.
The lesson is clear: If we do not fund in-country policy design and implementation, the bold assertions made at U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change meetings will not reduce emissions — and time is running out.
A recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirms that every avoided metric ton of greenhouse gas emissions can prevent a fraction of global warming, so strengthening national pledges matters immensely. To deliver on these promises, however, wealthy countries’ demands for stronger targets must be paired with the financial and technical support required to design and implement climate policies in emerging economies. The Paris Agreement’s success and global climate stability depend on it.
“Ambitious targets must be accompanied by concrete programs, technical support, and dedicated financing.”
—Although some countries and jurisdictions are making good progress curbing emissions, many governments are missing reduction opportunities because they lack the requisite staffers and technical expertise to design and implement effective climate policies tailored to their economies.
The United States and European Union are able to develop “vanguard” climate policies because they can access small armies of civil servants and technical experts offering unbiased assessments of policy impacts. But this is not true for emerging economies. The vast majority of countries have one or two people, at most, dedicated to efficiency regulations.
A safer climate requires well-designed policies and rigorous implementation. Fortunately, experience shows governments can design policies that deploy electric vehicles and renewable energy while scaling back fossil fuels in ways that kick-start new manufacturing, create sustainable jobs, and expand the economy.
But without technical support to create effective climate policies, fossil fuel interests make seemingly irrefutable claims that new regulations or subsidy reform will harm workers and economies — when the opposite is true.
Government officials must be empowered to counter industry claims with data and analytics. That’s where assistance from technical experts at NGOs can bridge the chasm between big goals and meaningful action.
For example, in China’s fifth-largest city, Guangzhou, policy design experts worked with local officials to design China’s flagship transportation network Bus Rapid Transit, which now carries more than 1 million passengers a day. In India, policy experts have a long-term partnership with the country’s lead agency setting appliance efficiency standards, helping the country make dozens of appliances more efficient and reducing emissions.
And in Indonesia, nonprofit experts are helping the government design building codes for the country’s new planned capital city, which will be completed by 2025. The codes will set an example for the rest of the country and could prevent 1,000 megatons of building-related carbon dioxide emissions when fully implemented.
These are just some examples that illustrate how providing technical expertise to policymakers focused on cutting emissions in the highest-emitting sectors can deliver climate wins, but much more is needed, and in even more countries.
We have a little over a decade to prevent catastrophic climate change, and in these critical remaining years, all nations must devote greater resources to decarbonization policies that can withstand fossil-fueled resistance.
As COP 26’s host, the United Kingdom should raise the collective ambitions of world leaders, but we must remember that such declarations represent a start rather than a victory. Ambitious targets must be accompanied by concrete programs, technical support, and dedicated financing to help the major lower-income countries decarbonize.
COP 26 must focus on bilateral or multilateral aid, examining the flows of aid to for-profit consulting groups when technically-expert nonprofit organizations that are trusted by local government leaders can perform this work, without special interests. As negotiators debate how to meet climate financing targets, they should recognize that funding for nongovernmental organizations is an incredibly powerful strategy for delivering on the emissions reduction cuts they are calling for.
To ensure the policy support flows to the places that need it most, we must urge our own elected officials to not only increase budgets for overseas climate aid, but to direct funding to those international and local expert organizations that design the most effective policies to cut emissions. In the U.S., the primary agency is the U.S. Agency for International Development, but other targeted U.S. initiatives include direct funding for research and development and groups such as the members of the Crux Alliance.
The upcoming reassessment of national commitments at COP 26 is vital to solving climate change, but unless it’s paired with the hard in-country work of designing and implementing smart climate policy, it will be little more than a shot of good cheer.
About the author
Joe Ryan
Joe Ryan serves as the executive director for energy innovation at Crux Alliance. He marshals and manages resources for organizations dedicated to the rapid adoption of sectoral climate policies in key countries around the world. Crux is committed to ensuring policymakers and other stakeholders on the ground and in-country have the best available information on policy design to reduce carbon emissions at speed and scale.
