| Title | Natural gas and climate finance |
|---|---|
| ID_Doc | 69568 |
| Authors | Broto, VC |
| Title | Natural gas and climate finance |
| Year | 2018 |
| Published | Climate Policy, 18.0, 2 |
| Abstract | Should energy projects to extend the use of natural gas be considered for funding under public climate finance commitments? This article provides an overview of evidence for and against climate finance for natural gas projects. The argument focuses on a case study, the UK's International Climate Fund (ICF). This synthesis concludes that gas-related projects will rarely be eligible for funding under public climate finance, save a few exceptions in which they provide energy access to households directly. Although gas power plants have generally lower emissions than those which use other fossil fuels such as coal, their impact will depend on the material constraints to calculate emissions reductions, the context of implementation, and the political economy of the target country. Three case studies demonstrate that energy access projects need to be understood as providing a whole range of sustainable benefits, from improving local health to reducing emissions. Overall, gas-related projects are complex interventions that require context-specific knowledge of both the effects of technology and the possible business models that can work in context. POLICY RELEVANCE This article investigates whether projects related to natural gas constitute an appropriate use of public climate finance, with a particular focus on the UK's International Climate Fund. Policy makers in developed countries will decide in the coming years how to use public climate finance; that is, the fraction of overseas development assistance (ODA) for climate change mitigation and adaptation. In the UK, for example, the ICF is the most important instrument to provide climate finance for developing countries. In 2013, the UK set out a clear position 'to end support for public financing of new coal-fired power plants overseas, except in rare circumstances.' This ban has fostered debate about whether similar positions should follow for other fossil fuels such as natural gas, specifically in the context of ICF funding. Similar debates are taking place in other countries such as Germany and Norway, and are informing the implementation of international facilities such as the Green Climate Fund. |
| https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1528814/3/Castan%20Broto_Climate_policy_manuscript29012016.pdf |
Similar Articles
| ID | Score | Article |
|---|---|---|
32068
|
Warren, P Blind spots in climate finance for innovation(2020)Advances In Climate Change Research, 11, 1 | |
| 76160
|
Park, J How can we pay for it all? Understanding the global challenge of financing climate change and sustainable development solutions(2022)Journal Of Environmental Studies And Sciences, 12, 1 | |
| 62851
|
Guertler, P Can the Green Deal be fair too? Exploring new possibilities for alleviating fuel poverty(2012) | |
| 33662
|
Bowman, M; Minas, S Resilience through interlinkage: the green climate fund and climate finance governance(2019)Climate Policy, 19.0, 3 | |
| 18088
|
Rossetto, D The relative importance of carbon markets to the waste management sector's future contribution to climate change commitments under the Paris Agreement: insights from Australia(2023)Carbon Neutrality, 2, 1 | |
| 33084
|
Shahzad, S; Faheem, M; Muqeet, HA; Waseem, M Charting the UK's path to net zero emissions by 2050: Challenges, strategies, and future directions(2024) |