Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
energy. A new study by Oxfam, in collaboration with the Stockholm Environment
Institute (SEI, 2011), reveals that developing countries are making more of an
effort to cut their greenhouse gas emissions than developed countries. Oxfam/SEI
estimates that over 60 per cent of emissions cuts by 2020 are likely to be made
by developing countries. While all countries should do their fair share to tackle
climate change, wealthy industrialized countries are not pulling their weight.
Currently Australia is on course to actually increase its emissions by around 24
per cent on 1990 levels by 2020 (SEI, 2011).
The path forward
So far, this chapter has outlined a number of significant challenges for climate
change adaptation in Australia's region. Oxfam believes that there are emerging
solutions to these challenges that we can begin to implement now. The solutions
also present opportunities to improve the long-term effectiveness of aid and
development efforts. This concluding section will briefly outline Oxfam's views
on 1) generating a sufficient volume of finance for adaptation, 2) establishing
a fair, effective and transparent global climate fund and 3) Australia's role in
reducing emissions.
New international sources of adaptation financing
The challenge of generating the needed volume of climate finance is significant,
but not insurmountable. There are a range of opportunities to generate new,
long-term and predictable sources of climate financing that do not draw upon
general revenue. Often called innovative sources of revenue, these could be
available in the medium to long term.
First, a financial transactions tax (also popularly known as the Robin Hood
Tax and an adaptation of the Tobin Tax proposal developed by Nobel Prize
winning economist James Tobin) could generate billions of dollars to tackle
poverty and climate change while also providing increased stability to financial
markets. A tax of only 0.05 per cent - which would only apply to transactions by
investment banks, hedge funds, and other financial institutions, not every-day
transactions conducted by individuals - would suffice. It has been estimated that
depending upon the size of the levy, that approximately US$400 bn could be
generated globally annually.
Second, aviation and shipping are significant contributors to greenhouse gas
pollution and pay very little tax, as they operate outside national borders. A levy
on emissions from international aviation and shipping, also known as bunker
fuels, could raise revenue while also having a price effect that might help reduce
emissions from these sources. It has been estimated that setting a carbon price
for ships at around $25 per tonne can drive significant maritime emissions cuts.
That is likely to increase the cost of shipping by just 0.2 per cent, or $2 for every
$1,000 traded, but would raise $25bn every year (Oxfam/WWF, 2011).
