The US wants big business to pay for climate change

There's the coal.

Skeptics fear that the US plan to use voluntary carbon markets to accelerate the energy transition in poor countries is nothing more than greenwashing.

But if done right, it could help developing markets shut down one of the world's biggest carbon emitters: coal-fired power plants.

The plan, known as the Accelerator of Energy Transition (ATE), was presented this week at the United Nations COP27 conference by John Kerry, the United States envoy for climate, in collaboration with the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bezos Earth Fund. .

The prize is considerable.

Elizabeth Yee of the Rockefeller Foundation says her models show that up to $130 billion could be mobilized by 2030. According to the International Energy Agency, coal-fired power plants produce a fifth of global emissions each year. of greenhouse gases, more than any other source.

Voluntary carbon markets, where companies earn emission credits in exchange for funneling money to poor countries that reduce their carbon output, have often been plagued by fraud and double counting.

Many critics believe that rich countries would have to fork out the money to shut down coal plants themselves, or tax fossil fuel companies to get that money.

Unfortunately, raising additional money, especially from the US, is difficult, and will be even more difficult after this week's congressional elections.

That's why it also makes sense to get voluntary contributions from big business to help shut down coal plants, but only if they cut their own emissions as fast as possible.

Bank of America, Microsoft and PepsiCo have shown interest.

ATE partners have learned the lesson from previous mistakes.

They promise that the money will be used in countries that establish general plans for the transition of their energy sectors.

This “jurisdictional” approach is intended to prevent new coal plants from springing up where they have been closed.

Nigeria and Chile want to participate.

But doubts persist.

One of them is that the ATE has not established its criteria on what is considered compensation.

Why not adhere to the high standards being developed by the Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative?

Another reason for concern is that the ATE plans to use the money not only to close coal plants, but also to promote renewables.

Countries need cheap money to accelerate the deployment of solar and wind power.

Now, building a solar plant does not reduce emissions to the same extent as closing a coal plant.

ATE partners acknowledge that their plan is not fully outlined.

That's good.

If they heed the constructive criticism, their plan could help realize the aspiration to completely phase out coal that was raised at the previous COP26.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: BREAKINGVIEWS.REUTERS.COM.

The authors are columnists for Reuters Breakingviews.

The opinions are yours.

The translation is the responsibility of EL PAÍS

Subscribe to continue reading

read without limits

Keep reading

I'm already a subscriber