An article (“UN secretary general calls for increase in pledged funding for climate change”) at Guardian.co.uk is reporting that Ban, apparently unmoved by the argument in the European Union which has erupted over how the EU will pay its "share" of the redistribution of wealth to the Third World, has decided that even more money will be needed. And Ban blames the United States for the failure to thus far reach the first $100 billion.
Money paid by rich countries to fight global warming will have to "be scaled up" from the $100bn a year on offer, the UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon said today.
Finance is the key, said Ban, to successful negotations on a global treaty to fight climate change, due to conclude at UN talks next month in Copenhagen....
Gordon Brown was praised by Ban as having originated the $100bn figure for the total global public and private funding needed each year by 2020 to tackle climate change. It would be spent on cutting emissions by providing green technologies, and on enabling countries to adapt to more frequent fierce storms and rising sea levels. The figure was adopted last week by the European Union as its official negotiating position for Copenhagen and is the only offer on the table so far.
"I think it can be a good start but it needs to be scaled up," said Ban.
Development groups have estimated the money needed at up to $400bn a year. But the amount by which it would need to increase was uncertain, he said: "We have to see how measures are effective. As time goes by we may need to change arrangements."
Ban's senior climate adviser, Janos Pasztor, added: "The needs are obviously much larger and it needs to be scaled up."
A crucial component of Ban’s drive for UN regulation of the international economy under the guise of enforcing a green economy is securing US financial support in the form of “cap and trade” legislation. Therefore, Ban plans to pressure the Senate to pass the Boxer bill.
Ban also revealed that he will next week meet all the US Senators involved in deliberations over the energy and climate bill. Agreement on that bill is seen as vital to negotiations, as without it the US team in Copenhagen will have little domestic mandate to agree a deal. The announcement of the personal intervention of the secretary general is a clear sign of the importance of the matter.
However, in a separate development, Democratic leaders in the Senate conceded today they would not attempt to vote through climate change legislation before Copenhagen. Barbara Boxer, the chair of the environment and public works committee, said the final draft of a climate change bill would be submitted to the US Environmental Protection Agency for a five-week analysis before being put to a vote. That in effect rules out a Senate vote before Copenhagen starts on 7 December.
If the Senate does not pass “cap and trade” legislation, there is a significant possibility that the UN’s agenda for Copenhagen may be delayed, or even derailed. With the U.S. federal deficit completely out of control, the economy in a steady decline, and a populace which is increasingly skeptical of the claims of environmentalists, Americans have good reason to ask why they should be asked to solve a problem which they do not think exists by giving money which they do not have to aid countries that are not grateful for what they have already been offered.
Photo of Ban Ki-moon: AP Images