June, 07 2022, 07:51am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Phone
+1 617 482 1211 (Toll-free 1-800-77-OXFAM)
800% increase in UN appeal needs for extreme weather-related emergencies over last 20 years - new Oxfam research
The amount of money needed for UN humanitarian appeals involving extreme weather events like floods or drought is now eight times higher than 20 years ago -- and donors are failing to keep up, reveals a new Oxfam brief today. For every $2 needed for UN weather-related appeals, donor countries are only providing $1.
Average annual extreme weather-related humanitarian funding appeals for 2000-2002 were at least $1.6 billion and rose to an average $15.5 billion in 2019-2021, an 819 percent increase.
WASHINGTON
The amount of money needed for UN humanitarian appeals involving extreme weather events like floods or drought is now eight times higher than 20 years ago -- and donors are failing to keep up, reveals a new Oxfam brief today. For every $2 needed for UN weather-related appeals, donor countries are only providing $1.
Average annual extreme weather-related humanitarian funding appeals for 2000-2002 were at least $1.6 billion and rose to an average $15.5 billion in 2019-2021, an 819 percent increase.
Rich countries responsible for most of today's climate change impacts have met only an estimated 54 percent of these appeals since 2017, leaving a shortfall of up to $33 billion.
The countries with the most recurring appeals against extreme weather crises -- over 10 each -- include Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, Kenya, Niger, Somalia, South Sudan and Zimbabwe.
The report, "Footing the Bill", says that the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events due to climate change is putting more pressure on an already over-stretched and underfunded humanitarian system. The costs of the destruction from these storms, droughts and floods are also increasing inequality; people in poorer communities and low-income countries are the worst hit yet they lack the systems and funding that wealthier countries have to cope with the effects. The richest one percent of people on Earth are emitting twice as much carbon pollution as the poorest half of humanity.
The UN appeals focus on the most urgent humanitarian needs, but that barely scratches the surface of the real costs in loss and damage that climate change is now wreaking on countries' economies.
The economic cost of extreme weather events in 2021 alone was estimated to be $329 billion globally, the third highest year on record. This is nearly double the total aid given by rich nations to the developing world that year.
The costs of loss and damage to low- and middle-income countries -- for instance, the money needed to rebuild homes and hospitals or provide shelter, food and emergency cash transfers after a cyclone -- could reach between $290 billion and $580 billion a year by 2030. This does not account for non-economic losses such as the loss of life, cultures and ways of living, and biodiversity.
UN appeals represent just a small part of the costs of climate disasters for people who are especially vulnerable and they only reach a fraction of the people who are suffering. Oxfam's research shows that UN appeals cover only about 474 million of the estimated 3.9 billion people in low- and middle-income countries affected by extreme weather-related disasters since 2000, equivalent to one in eight people.
"Human activity has created a world 1.1@C warmer than pre-industrial levels and we are now suffering the consequences. More alarming still, we will overshoot the 1.5@C safety threshold on current projections. The cost of climate destruction will keep rising and our failure now to cut emissions will have catastrophic consequences for humanity. We can't ignore the huge economic and non-economic losses and damages that underlie this picture -- the loss of life, homes, schools, jobs, culture, land, Indigenous and local knowledge, and biodiversity," said Oxfam Executive Director Gabriela Bucher.
"This is the climate chaos we have long been warning about. Many countries that are being hardest-hit by climate change are already facing crises including conflict, food inflation, and the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. This is leading to rapidly rising inequality, mass displacement, hunger and poverty," said Bucher.
Humanitarian disasters affect men differently than women, who face long-standing inequalities that undermine their ability to cope. Women's rights and progress towards gender equity are threatened with every disaster. The UNDP estimates that 80 percent of people being displaced by climate change are women.
"Poor countries cannot be expected to foot the bill, and increasing aid -- while helpful -- is not alone the answer. Paying the cost of climate-driven loss and damages should be on the basis of responsibility -- not charity. Rich countries, rich people and big corporations most responsible for causing climate change must pay for the harm they are causing," said Bucher.
Rich and industrialized countries have contributed around 92 percent of excess historical emissions and 37 percent of current emissions. Africa's current emissions stand at just 4 percent.
Kenya, Somalia, South Sudan and Ethiopia -- where more than 24.4 million people now face severe levels of hunger and food insecurity -- are together responsible for just 0.1 percent of current global emissions.
Rich industrialized nations have stymied loss and damage finance negotiations for years. At COP26 in Glasgow, they rejected developing countries' calls for a new finance facility to address loss and damage and instead agreed to a three-year 'Glasgow Dialogue' to discuss future arrangements. "This just added insult to injury," Bucher said.
Ahead of 56th sessions of the UNFCCC Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) in Germany, which includes the first 'Glasgow Dialogue' on loss and damage since COP26, Oxfam urges:
- Rich country governments to pledge bilateral finance to address loss and damage, in addition to existing climate finance and ODA commitments.
- All governments to agree to establish and fund a finance facility for loss and damage at COP27, with annual contributions based on responsibility for causing climate change and capacity to pay.
- All governments to agree to make loss and damage a core element of the UNFCCC's Gender Action Plan.
Oxfam International is a global movement of people who are fighting inequality to end poverty and injustice. We are working across regions in about 70 countries, with thousands of partners, and allies, supporting communities to build better lives for themselves, grow resilience and protect lives and livelihoods also in times of crisis.
LATEST NEWS
Fury as South Korea's Conservative Party Thwarts Impeachment Vote
"Today, citizens witnessed democracy taking a step backward," said the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions.
Dec 07, 2024
A bid to impeach South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol over his short-lived imposition of martial law failed Saturday after lawmakers from his conservative party left the National Assembly chamber and refused to take part in the vote.
Supporters of impeachment needed at least eight members of Yoon's People Power Party (PPP) to support removing the president, who apologized to the nation in a one-minute-long address Saturday morning but refused to step down after he briefly instituted martial law in a stated attempt to "eradicate shameful pro-North Korea" forces, plunging the country into a political crisis.
Yoon's gambit sparked immediate and sustained protests and was widely seen as a coup attempt.
Saturday's impeachment effort drew a massive number of people into the streets outside the National Assembly building despite below-freezing temperatures, and demonstrators voiced outrage when they learned that Yoon's allies thwarted the initial attempt to oust him. Just two PPP members returned to the National Assembly chamber to cast a ballot Saturday.
"I am so angry. I can't find the words to describe my frustration," 23-year-old Kim Hyo-lim toldThe New York Times. "I am devastated, but I feel honored to be a part of this historic moment for my country."
Another demonstrator said they intend to protest "every weekend" until Yoon is removed.
(Photo: Daniel Ceng/Anadolu via Getty Images)
Organizers said roughly a million people took part in demonstrations Saturday in support of Yoon's impeachment. Many also demanded his arrest.
The Financial Timesreported following the failed impeachment effort that Yoon—whose term expires in 2027—and PPP leaders "appeared to have reached a deal whereby the president would hand over political direction of the country to his party and agree to stand down at a time of the party's choosing, in return for support in the impeachment vote."
The Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), which has over 1.1 million members, called PPP lawmakers who boycotted Saturday's vote "accomplices in treason."
"The People Power Party has turned its back on the people's wishes, effectively admitting their complicity," KCTU said in a statement posted to social media. "More than one million citizens gathered in front of the National Assembly. They came together because they cannot forgive a president who declared martial law and aimed weapons at his own people. Despite the cold winter weather, they took to the streets hoping desperately for the impeachment to pass."
"Today, citizens witnessed democracy taking a step backward," KCTU added. "They saw clearly who stands with those who would harm our democracy. The People Power Party must be dissolved. Those who protect Yoon must face consequences. It would be a grave mistake to think this can be resolved through compromise or constitutional amendments for an early resignation. Through the people's judgment, Yoon, his associates, and the People Power Party will face severe consequences."
Opposition lawmakers are expected to file a fresh impeachment motion next week as pressure mounts for Yoon to step down.
Additionally, as The Washington Postreported, "the national police have opened an investigation into Yoon on treason accusations by opposition parties and activists."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Top Democrat Issues Warning Over Trump Plot to 'Steal' From Federal Programs
"The Constitution provides no impoundment power to the president to unilaterally withhold funds appropriated by Congress," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro.
Dec 07, 2024
The top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee warned Friday that President-elect Donald Trump is planning to "steal from the programs and services that affect middle-class, working, and vulnerable families" by refusing to spend money appropriated by Congress.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said in a statement that Trump's strategy, known as "impoundment," is "uninformed and unconstitutional," adding that "the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice, and the Government Accountability Office are all in agreement—the Constitution provides no impoundment power to the president to unilaterally withhold funds appropriated by Congress."
"It is the sworn duty of the president of the United States to faithfully execute the law," DeLauro added, "and appropriations laws are no exception."
In a new fact sheet, Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee note that "the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, and nowhere does it give the president any unilateral power to either temporarily or permanently impound—steal, withhold, or prevent from being spent—funds appropriated by Congress."
"The Framers were right to give Congress the power of the purse," the fact sheet states. "If the president had the unilateral power to decline to spend resources as directed by Congress, then those who rely on Social Security, Medicare, Veterans Medical Care, and other federal spending programs would be subject to the whims of the executive branch. The American people would be unable to depend on promises made by Congress in appropriations laws."
Trump has explicitly vowed to use impoundment to "squeeze the bloated federal bureaucracy for massive savings," a plan endorsed by the billionaire pair tapped by the president-elect to run a new commission tasked with identifying spending and regulations to slash.
"With impoundment, we can simply choke off the money," Trump declared in a campaign ad.
"They have no authority. Does anybody get that?"
Following Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy's visit to Capitol Hill on Thursday to discuss their plans for the "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE) with GOP lawmakers, The Washington Postreported that Republicans are "keen on expanding the president's power to impound spending—or refuse to spend money Congress authorizes."
"Musk and Ramaswamy said they were eager to test the constitutional limits of Trump's ability to unilaterally control spending decisions," the Post reported, citing two unnamed lawmakers. "Republicans largely left the more than two-hour meeting giddy."
Analysts argue Trump's plan to withhold federal spending would run afoul of the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The law, as Propublica's Molly Redden explained, "forbids presidents from blocking spending over policy disagreements."
"A similar power grab led to his first impeachment," Redden wrote. "During his first term, Trump held up nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine while he pressured President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to open a corruption investigation into Joe Biden and his family. The U.S. Government Accountability Office later ruled his actions violated the Impoundment Control Act."
Democrats on the House Budget Committee recently pointed out that "although decided after the ICA passed, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Train v. City of New York that even without the ICA, the president does not have unilateral authority to impound funds."
That hasn't stopped Trump, Musk, and Ramaswamy from exploring ways to cut or block spending without congressional approval.
In a Wall Street Journalop-ed published last month, Musk and Ramaswamy wrote that "even without relying on" the view that the ICA is unconstitutional, "DOGE will help end federal overspending by taking aim at the $500 billion-plus in annual federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress or being used in ways that Congress never intended, from $535 million a year to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and $1.5 billion for grants to international organizations to nearly $300 million to progressive groups like Planned Parenthood."
Housing assistance, childcare aid, student loan programs, and other spending would also be vulnerable under such an approach.
"They want [to cut] $2 trillion," DeLauro told reporters Thursday. "Think about the discretionary budget. It's $1.7 trillion. Where are they going for the money? Where are they going?"
"They have no authority," she added. "Does anybody get that?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Dirty and Dumb!' Trump May Cancel Contracts to Electrify USPS Fleet
"It's stuff like this that will cost us manufacturing jobs/opportunities," warned one critic.
Dec 06, 2024
As part of President-elect Donald Trump's mission to roll back the Biden administration's climate policies, the Republican may cancel contracts to electrify the U.S. Postal Service's fleet, Reutersrevealed Friday, citing unnamed sources familiar with transition team discussions.
"The sources told Reuters that Trump's transition team is now reviewing how it can unwind the Postal Service's multibillion-dollar contracts, including with Oshkosh and Ford for tens of thousands of battery-driven delivery trucks and charging stations," according to the news agency.
The USPS in December 2022 announced a five-year $9.6 billion investment that involved electrifying 75% of its next-generation delivery vehicles and installing modern charging infrastructure. That came just months after President Joe Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, which included $3 billion in funding for the endeavor.
Ford did not respond to Reuters' requests for comment on Friday, while Oshkosh said that it "is fully committed to our strong partnership with the USPS and looks forward to continuing to provide our postal carriers with reliable, safe, and sustainable modern delivery vehicles, even as USPS' needs continue to evolve."
The USPS also did not respond to requests for comment and Trump transition team spokesperson Karoline Leavitt declined to address his Postal Service plans, only saying that "President Trump will protect the freedom of Americans to drive whichever vehicle they choose, enhance his tough tariffs on Chinese-imported cars, and save the U.S. auto industry for generations to come. No policy should be deemed official unless it comes directly from President Trump."
During the campaign, Trump pledged to roll back Biden's climate policies if Big Oil poured $1 billion into getting him elected. He also attacked the Democrat's efforts to promote a shift to electric vehicles (EVs). Transportation accounts for the largest portion of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and the United States is the world's top historic emitter.
Even under Biden, U.S. plans to limit planet-heating pollution did not align with the country's contributions to the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency—but climate scientists and advocates widely backed his and later Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign leading up to last month's election, recognizing the threat posed by Trump.
John Hanger, a Democrat who previously held various envirnomental and energy positions in Pennsylvania's government, responded to the Reuters reporting on social media: "Ugh! Canceling contracts to electrify transportation of USPS would be dirty and dumb!"
Meanwhile, Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, said that "it's stuff like this that will cost us manufacturing jobs/opportunities."
Some critics also speculated whether such contracts may be redone to benefit Tesla. The company's CEO is Elon Musk, who is the richest man in the world, dumped around $270 million into super political action committees backing Trump's reelection bid, and is set to co-lead his forthcoming Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) with fellow billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy.
Last month, Reuters reported on the Trump transition team's plans to kill Biden's fuel efficiency standards and a $7,500 consumer tax credit for EV purchases, which Musk was asked about while he and Ramaswamy were on Capitol Hill Thursday to meet with Republican lawmakers.
"I think we should get rid of all credits," Musk told reporters—despite his own company's reliance on Biden's EV policies.
Responding to Musk's comment in a Friday statement, Will Anderson, EV policy advocate with Public Citizen's Climate Program, said that "as someone who's asking to work for the American people through his so-called DOGE, Musk should not perpetuate crony capitalism that only benefits himself and others with access to Trump."
"If we want the American automobile industry to stay competitive in a global market," he added, "then not only should Musk recognize the benefit of the EV tax credit for American-made vehicles, but he should also recognize the negative impact billions of dollars in continuing oil and gas subsidies will have on a society that needs to transition to a zero-emission and clean-energy future."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular