Climate finance is a jumbled mix of public and private funding that's supposed to help poorer countries adapt to the devastating effects of climate change. The rich countries, or developed nations, agreed to provide $100 billion (£76 billion) annually by 2020 so the poor could reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and build resilience to rising temperatures.
But tracking this money has proven to be a headache - there are vague definitions, dodgy projects, and inflated accounting that makes it hard to know what's really happening. In fact, some experts call climate finance the "wild west" of funding, where money disappears into thin air.
The truth is, rich countries didn't quite meet their initial pledge but managed to hit a lower target by 2022, when they pledged $116 billion (£88 billion). A charity group like Oxfam estimates that only about $95.3 billion (£72 billion) was actually disbursed last year, which is even less than its minimum estimate.
To break it down, public money makes up over three-quarters of climate funding to developing countries, with bilateral funding and multilateral institutions like the World Bank handing out cash directly or indirectly to recipients. Private finance also plays a role, although not as much as thought - public money still accounts for more than two-thirds of total funding.
The main recipients of climate finance are some of the world's poorest countries, including Tuvalu, Chad, Madagascar, Haiti, Mali, Niger, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, and Yemen. These nations need this funding to build resilience and adapt to a changing climate. But it's not just poor countries that get money - some wealthier nations like India and China also receive funds.
Developed countries, such as Japan, Germany, the US, and France, are among the biggest donors of public funding for climate finance. However, there have been concerns about the nature of this funding: two-thirds of it is in the form of loans with strings attached. These loans can pile pressure on poor countries to spend more money paying off interest rather than using it for projects that help them adapt.
The loan conditions vary from case to case but often include clauses that force recipients to hire companies from the donor country. This has raised concerns about the unfairness and lack of transparency in how climate finance is being used.
A new target has been set, requiring developed countries to provide $300 billion each year by 2035. The new goal is for developed countries and institutions like the World Bank to mobilize $1.3 trillion (£1 trillion) annually by 2035. This funding would come primarily from the private sector.
While this increased funding might seem like a good step, experts worry that it could be just as opaque and unaccountable as previous efforts at climate finance - but with an even greater reliance on investment by wealthy nations.
But tracking this money has proven to be a headache - there are vague definitions, dodgy projects, and inflated accounting that makes it hard to know what's really happening. In fact, some experts call climate finance the "wild west" of funding, where money disappears into thin air.
The truth is, rich countries didn't quite meet their initial pledge but managed to hit a lower target by 2022, when they pledged $116 billion (£88 billion). A charity group like Oxfam estimates that only about $95.3 billion (£72 billion) was actually disbursed last year, which is even less than its minimum estimate.
To break it down, public money makes up over three-quarters of climate funding to developing countries, with bilateral funding and multilateral institutions like the World Bank handing out cash directly or indirectly to recipients. Private finance also plays a role, although not as much as thought - public money still accounts for more than two-thirds of total funding.
The main recipients of climate finance are some of the world's poorest countries, including Tuvalu, Chad, Madagascar, Haiti, Mali, Niger, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, and Yemen. These nations need this funding to build resilience and adapt to a changing climate. But it's not just poor countries that get money - some wealthier nations like India and China also receive funds.
Developed countries, such as Japan, Germany, the US, and France, are among the biggest donors of public funding for climate finance. However, there have been concerns about the nature of this funding: two-thirds of it is in the form of loans with strings attached. These loans can pile pressure on poor countries to spend more money paying off interest rather than using it for projects that help them adapt.
The loan conditions vary from case to case but often include clauses that force recipients to hire companies from the donor country. This has raised concerns about the unfairness and lack of transparency in how climate finance is being used.
A new target has been set, requiring developed countries to provide $300 billion each year by 2035. The new goal is for developed countries and institutions like the World Bank to mobilize $1.3 trillion (£1 trillion) annually by 2035. This funding would come primarily from the private sector.
While this increased funding might seem like a good step, experts worry that it could be just as opaque and unaccountable as previous efforts at climate finance - but with an even greater reliance on investment by wealthy nations.
... its like they say one thing but do another, and then wonder why money goes missing? 
... rich countries agree to give $100 billion but actually only gave $95 billion last year?! that's crazy low 
... doesnt it just mean more debt for poor countries and not really helping them adapt to climate change? 
... whats the point of setting a new target of $300 billion by 2035 if its still gonna be loans with conditions attached? 
... i wish they could just be transparent about how the money is being used, thats all we need 
... why dont they ask for more from wealthy countries like China and India instead of making them donate as well? 
. Like, can't they just make it simple for once? It's like they want to confuse everyone on purpose. And don't even get me started on the loans with strings attached - what a way to help poor countries, right? 
. The new target is only making things worse, if you ask me. Like, a trillion dollars? Are they kidding me? 
i'm not convinced that increasing the funding target to $300 billion/year by 2035 will magically fix everything, we need real transparency and accountability in how these funds are being used 
maybe it's time for some radical changes instead of just tweaking the same old system? 
And the worst part is that a lot of this money comes with strings attached, which can actually make things worse for the countries that need it most. It feels like a big game of financial whack-a-mole - they set up new rules to help, but then the same old problems pop back up. 
. I mean, $100 billion was the initial pledge, but they managed to hit a lower target in 2022? That's like setting a goal and then just kinda... going through the motions 
. And the fact that only £72 billion ended up being disbursed last year is crazy 
. I mean, poor countries need help adapting to climate change, not getting saddled with debt from wealthy nations 
.
It's like, what if it all gets funneled into corporate interests instead of sustainable development? 
I feel so frustrated when I see how hard it is to track climate finance. Like, we know it's a lot of money, but where does it really go? And all these strings attached loans from rich countries just seem unfair 
I know we're working towards this new target of $300 billion a year by 2035, but what if that number doesn't stick? What if it gets watered down even further? It's just so discouraging.
:
: