Sustainable Energy and Economy Network

“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.

This Frankenstorm, can we stop fooling ourselves? Our planet desperately needs us to act like adults and get beyond [just] responding to one storm after another, as though each one were a unique shock, and not related to an overall climate crisis of enormous proportions.

We need our political leaders and weather-casters to end the silence on climate change, to tell us the truth: That these storms will only grow more intense as our oceans warm and the Arctic melts. And we need to start to think long-term, to start claiming responsibility and not blame Mother Nature for our plight.

Daphne Wysham said today: "The Arctic is melting to record lows, extreme weather is increasing, grain reserves are at record lows threatening millions with hunger should there be another bad grain harvest next year, but there was NO mention of climate change in the presidential debates.

. . . On the surface, the candidates appear to hold different positions on climate change . . . Yet both candidates have made clear -- either in coded language or in outright support -- that they will allow the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline from Canada to the United States to proceed with little impediment, ignoring warnings from NASA’s top climate scientist, Dr. James Hansen, that if the Canadian tar sands are fully exploited, 'it is game over for Earth’s climate.' "

Money from Exxon:
Romney: $108,860
Obama: $57,846

From Energy/Natural Resources Sectors:
Romney: $6,385,880
Obama: $1,607,407