During the two-day meeting, jointly sponsored by Switzerland and Mexico, officials will assess how to spend money to reduce global warming, who should manage it and how it should be distributed.
Stopping the progress of global warming costs money. Rich countries, the major emitters of greenhouse gases, are expected to create funds to help the poorest nations, many of which are already dealing with the consequences of climate change, such as droughts or floods.
One of the few agreements reached last year during the United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, was the creation of a U.S. $ 30 billion funds to begin solving the problem and the possibility of establishing another U.S. $ 100,000 fund to long term.
However, what was not agreed upon is how that capital should be used, who would be responsible for distributing it, or even who should contribute money for this fund.
Developing countries want help now, but they don’t want donors to cut their aid budget to fund this new initiative.
Rich nations, for their part, are eager to invest in green technologies. The goods or products that we use every day, such as a car or a refrigerator, must be sustainable and economical if what is wanted is to reduce global warming.
The Geneva meeting will explore ways to finance these changes.
Although the meeting is not expected to result in firm decisions, many believe that reaching an agreement is crucial if any progress is to be made at the next climate summit that will take place in Cancun, Mexico, in December.…
The U.S. bill on climate change, one of the pillars of President Barack Obama’s domestic agenda, was released Wednesday in the Senate. Democratic Senator John Kerry revealed that the project plans to reduce pollutant emissions by 17% by 2020 based on 2005. This means a setback for the measures approved in November, which set a 20% reduction.
Kerry said the goal is to convert to the US. in a “world leader in renewable energy.”
The rule would also ease restrictions on drilling oil in U.S. territorial waters, a particularly controversial measure after the oil spill produced in the Gulf of Mexico – which threatens to become one of the worst environmental disasters in the country – and not yet He has managed to contain himself.
Obama had announced that he would give greater facilities in March, but the accident forced him to rethink his decision.
The project released by Kerry will allow states to veto drilling plans if they can prove that they pose a threat to the environment, even if this causes them to lose the royalties proposed by the government if they approve these projects, which represent 37.5% of earnings.
The document has been delayed for months because of objections raised by Republicans.
“This is a bill to achieve energy independence, after a devastating oil spill, a project that holds pollutants responsible, which will contribute billions of dollars to give work to the next generation,” he said.
The law would require paying a tax to large pollutants, such as coal-powered power plants.
Kerry and Senator Joe Lieberman, who also supports the bill, said the agricultural sector and the medium-sized business would be exempt.
On the other hand, the project contemplates offering incentives (about the U.S. $ 2 billion a year) for companies that develop clean technologies, among which
They also include carbon capture and storage systems.
It also includes – and this may serve to “sweeten” those who oppose the document – economic stimuli for the development of nuclear energy.…