Sustainable Energy and Economy Network

“From what we’ve heard from those inside the room, the climate finance mobilizer’s meeting convened by the US State department appeared to be more of a technical dog and pony show about how US agencies and organizations are engaging the private sector,” Janet Redman, from the DC based think tank the Institute for Policy Studies told RTCC.

“Any discussion of innovative sources of new public finance, like a financial transaction tax, was sidelined – in spite of demonstrators outside calling for a Financial Transaction Tax and the Norwegian Minister of International Development, Heikki Holmås, joining the rally calling for new public money.”

“Nicholas Stern puts a significant emphasis on getting the price of carbon right, and clearly bank officials do understand this,” Janet Redman, director of the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network at the Institute for Policy Studies, a Washington think tank, told IPS.

“Yet, there’s a sense that the poorest of the poor still need dirty fuels to facilitate energy access. In fact, there’s been a lot of work, including by the bank, showing that burning fossil fuels not only doesn’t increase energy access for the poorest of the poor, but actually increases poverty.”

“Decisions taken at the Green Climate Fund board are central to how the needs of climate vulnerable communities will be met, so it is essential that their deliberations are open and transparent,” Janet Redman, co-director of the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network at the Institute for Policy Studies, a Washington think tank, said Tuesday.

“At this point it seems the board wants to limit public participation, access and voice. That would be a huge step backward.”

“Decisions taken at the Green Climate Fund board are central to how the needs of climate vulnerable communities will be met, so it is essential that their deliberations are open and transparent,” Janet Redman, co-director of the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network at the Institute for Policy Studies, a Washington think tank, said Tuesday.

“At this point it seems the board wants to limit public participation, access and voice. That would be a huge step backward.”

“Decisions taken at the Green Climate Fund board are central to how the needs of climate vulnerable communities will be met, so it is essential that their deliberations are open and transparent,” Janet Redman, co-director of the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network at the Institute for Policy Studies, a Washington think tank, said Tuesday.

“At this point it seems the board wants to limit public participation, access and voice. That would be a huge step backward.”

. . . “Many members of the board from developed countries have said they don’t want to talk about potential sources for the public money, and have focused instead on how to leverage private capital,” the Institute for Policy Studies’ Redman told IPS from Berlin . . . Further, when the GCF does engage with the private sector, she cautions, the focus should be not on major multinational investors but rather on local actors interested in developing sustainable national economies.

“The GCF wants to bring about a paradigm shift, but we’re not going to avoid any climate catastrophe unless we get a profound shift in the organisation of our economies,” she says.

“Clearly that includes the private sector, and we certainly want to include private sector entrepreneurs in countries most affected by climate change. But what we can’t do is provide fertile ground for foreign direct investments that look to extract profit from developing countries rather than working to build up sustainable local economies.”

“Decisions taken at the Green Climate Fund board are central to how the needs of climate vulnerable communities will be met, so it is essential that their deliberations are open and transparent,” Janet Redman, co-director of the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network at the Institute for Policy Studies, a Washington think tank, said Tuesday.

“At this point it seems the board wants to limit public participation, access and voice. That would be a huge step backward.”

As part of an ongoing series of conversations about building America's energy future, the Monitor hosted a roundtable discussion in Washington on Dec. 12, 2012, with several clean-energy experts. The video below is an excerpt from panelist Daphne Wysham, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and founder and co-director of the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network. Ms. Wysham speaks about her vision for a bipartisan clean-energy policy in America. 

DAPHNE WYSHAM: I think that common ground starts around "Made in the USA" manufacturing, keeping jobs in the United States, keeping them competitive, in-sourcing investments that employ our own well-trained workers, and thinking about energy security and climate security as two goals that we want to achieve, which means getting more energy from within our own borders, and less from foreign sources.

“We shouldn’t be paying coal producers that are still doing well and we shouldn’t be subsidising dirty energy given the climate reality that we are facing,” says Janet Redman, co-director of the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington.

“That extends to support for exporting coal as well. These should be off the table and Obama should be pushing for that in the next four years,” Redman told RTCC adding that the present “all of the above energy strategy” should focus more on clean energy.

Part of what the privatisation of the fund allows for is for developed countries to weasel their way out of responsibilities under the principles of equity and CBDR by allowing private finance to fill the void of their unfulfilled promises.

Many from developed countries are pushing for direct and indirect access to the GCF [Global Climate Fund] for private sector companies.

According to Janet Redman of the Institute for Policy Studies, if such a proposal goes ahead "Shell and Exxon could get access to [the fund to] build a massive wind farm in Mexico that powers Walmart". This is a worrying trend for developing countries who may have wanted to use the fund to bolster national attempts to respond to climate change.