COP23: Two Degrees, With Separation

Transcription

1 Primary Credit Analyst: Noemie De La Gorce, London 44 (0) ; Secondary Contacts: Michael Wilkins, London (44) ; Jessica Williams, London (44) ; Miroslav Petkov, London (44) ; Table Of Contents Where Will The Money Come From? Supporting A "Just Transition" Through Blended Finance America's Pledge: We're Still In Looking Ahead To Katowice Related Research Other Research NOVEMBER 23,

2 Key Takeaways Against a backdrop of multiple extreme weather events, COP23 focused on the need to accelerate mitigation efforts and increase infrastructure resilience. Mobilizing private-sector and multilateral finance emerged as a key theme, as countries start putting in place plans to fund their mitigation and adaptation efforts. The U.S. administration's decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement in June had little effect on dampening the overall ambition of U.S. states and municipal authorities as well as businesses in tackling climate change. Countries remain committed to the targets set in Paris, despite the U.S. intention to withdraw from the agreement. In contrast to the euphoric Paris conference of 2015, where 195 countries agreed to limit global warming below two degrees Celsius, COP23 in Bonn was a more subdued event. After a year of multiple extreme weather events around the world, some delegations expressed their growing sense of urgency for action, particularly the small island states and developing countries looking to focus more attention on climate change adaptation. Overall though, the Bonn conference, which was the 23rd UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, saw the parties rolling up their sleeves and digging into the important details and technicalities of implementing the Paris Agreement. Where Will The Money Come From? A key question for negotiators was how to convert political ambition into concrete actions, and in turn how to finance these. We've previously highlighted the gap between the political ambitions expressed in the Paris Agreement and the financings committed to support these ambitions (see "Paris Agreement Climate Pledges: Where Will The Money Come From?"). Our research found that 60 countries have so far disclosed a financing plan to achieve reductions in their greenhouse gas emissions (known as Nationally Determined Contributions or NDCs), out of the 170 countries that ratified the agreement. We also found that the $5.3 trillion cost estimated by these 60 countries is unlikely to be met from public-sector funding sources (see chart 1). It's no surprise then that climate negotiations have increasingly focused on how to mobilize private sector and multilateral finance, as countries start putting in place their NDCs. The decision by the Trump administration to withdraw from the agreement, which leaves a $2 billion gap in the financing of the Green Climate Fund, a financial mechanism under the UNFCCC that helps fund investment in low-emission, climate-resilient development, gave further impetus to tackling this question. NOVEMBER 23,

3 Chart 1 The mobilization of private finance to transition to a low carbon economy differs in scale and speed between sectors. Overall, we have seen private financing emerge to support new business opportunities in mitigating the carbon impact of traditional sectors such as the energy and construction industries. In the energy sector, the private sector is contributing to the deployment of renewable capacity at a rapid pace, as shown by the $173 billion in outstanding green bonds in the green energy sector in 2017 (figure from the Climate Bond Initiative). However, private financing still remains scarce in sectors with relatively high risks and limited opportunities for returns. For example, we have found that investments in energy efficiency projects have been historically limited by the small-scale and diversified nature of transactions as well as the long payback periods (see "How S&P Global Ratings Views The Credit Risk Of Energy Efficiency Projects"). The lack of private funding is even more acute in adaptation projects that aim to strengthen the resilience of buildings, infrastructure, and communities against the effects of climate change. Supporting A "Just Transition" Through Blended Finance How fast and at what scale private finance is being mobilized to fund the transition to a low carbon economy also differs across regions. One of the key challenges facing countries that are most exposed to the physical impacts of NOVEMBER 23,

4 climate change typically emerging and developing economies is their limited access to financial markets, which is partly due to their lower creditworthiness. Still, these countries need significant investment to switch to a more sustainable development path from a carbon intensive one. Recent extreme weather events have shown just how vulnerable these countries are, particularly if the frequency and intensity of these events increases through climate change, and the severity of the impact. For example, Hurricane Harvey is expected to cost the U.S. around 1% of its GDP, whereas the damage caused by Hurricane Irma is likely to cost some Caribbean Islands more than their annual GDP, according to reports. Globally, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) estimates additional adaptation costs will be between $140 billion to $300 billion by 2030, and $280 billion to $500 billion by In other words, financing for adaptation in 2030 would need to increase by approximately 6 to 13 times over the international public finance available today to fill the gap according to UNEP. We expect that a significant amount of this will need to be directed to the most vulnerable countries with the least developed economies. Ensuring they can develop sustainably, while increasing their resilience to climate change will also be necessary to achieve a "just transition," supporting economies and communities in the move to low carbon economy. Participants also identified blended finance as a potentially powerful instrument in achieving a "just transition." Blended finance refers to the provision of both public and private funding from a range of different sources, including sovereign, development, and multilateral lenders as well as private entities. It relies on financing structures where public entities provide hedging and credit enhancement mechanisms to reduce risks for private-sector funders. In parallel, the private sector can bring liquidity and sizing through standardization and securitization. In October 2017, the OECD estimated the number of new blended finance facilities created between 2000 and 2016 to be 167, representing $31 billion in financing commitments. We expect the deployment of blended financing solutions to play an increasing role in climate financing (see chart 2). NOVEMBER 23,

5 Chart 2 America's Pledge: We're Still In Another key question at COP23 was the stance of the U.S., both officially and unofficially. This was the first COP since President Trump announced his intention to pull out of the Paris Agreement. The conference revealed the deep divisions among the U.S. participants at the conference on the solutions to fight climate change. On one side, the official U.S. delegation promoted investments in efficient fossil fuel technologies. On the other, a coalition of U.S. states, cities, and businesses showcased its transition away from fossil fuels and its contribution continuing commitment to the Paris Agreement through the U.S. Climate Action Center (see graphic). Among the speakers, the Governor of Virginia Terry McAuliffe noted how the growing number of businesses making commitments to use 100% renewable energy was becoming a critical factor in the state's competitiveness. NOVEMBER 23,

6 Chart 3 This split within the U.S. between the supporters and detractors of the Paris Agreement illustrates the fierce debate around the disruptive potential of new low-carbon technologies. While some predict that the transition to a low-carbon economy will be mostly based on improving existing technologies, others argue that the transition may result in unprecedented changes in companies' business models and operating environment, especially in the energy industry. This was the argument presented by the Carbon Tracker Initiative in their recently published "No Country For Coal Gen" report, which estimated that up to $104 billion in assets in the U.S. coal power generation sector would be stranded by 2035 under a two-degree scenario. Coal continued to be a hot topic at COP23. In stark contrast to the U.S. stance, the U.K. and Canada led the creation of the Powering Past Coal Alliance with the objective of phasing out of coal power generation by This was met with NOVEMBER 23,

7 enthusiasm from the parties and NGOs alike, with France announcing that it will aim to close all of its coal plants by Looking Ahead To Katowice COP23 demonstrated that countries remain committed to the targets set in the Paris Agreement despite the current U.S. administration's intention to withdraw. Efforts are now focusing on the concrete implementation of the Paris Agreement the so-called rulebook through blended finance, further negotiations to ratchet up targets, and a greater focus on adaptation, especially for the most vulnerable communities. The review of progress on these measures at next year's conference in Katowice, Poland, will show whether these efforts have been ambitious enough. Beth Burks contributed to this article. Writer: Chris Fordyce. Related Research How Environmental And Climate Risks And Opportunities Factor Into Global Corporate Ratings - An Update, Nov. 9, 2017 How Do Labeled Green Bonds Measure Up? Nov. 8, 2017 Paris Agreement Climate Pledges: Where Will The Money Come From? Nov. 6, 2017 Credit FAQ: Understanding Climate Change Risk and U.S. Municipal Ratings, Oct. 17, 2017 Green America: The Prospects For The Development Of The Green Bond Market In The U.S., Sept. 5, 2017 Trumped Up: How The Clean Power Plan's Exit Could Affect The Power Sector, June 28, 2017 Withdrawal Symptoms: What Trump's Paris Agreement Decision Could Mean For American Generators, June 2, 2017 Green Evaluation Analytical Approach, April 26, 2017 Beyond Green Bonds: Sustainable Finance Comes Of Age, April 26, 2017 New Recommendations For Climate Risk Disclosure Follow A Positive Outcome At Marrakech, Dec. 14, 2016 The Paris Agreement: A New Dawn For Tackling Climate Change, Or More Of The Same? Jan. 18, 2016 The Heat Is On: How Climate Change Can Impact Sovereign Ratings, Nov. 25, 2015 How Standard & Poor's Views The Credit Risk Of Energy Efficiency Projects, Nov. 16, 2015 Other Research Climate Bond Initiative, Bonds and Climate Change, The State of the Market in 2017, September 2017 The Economist, Hurricane Irma, Paradise lost, September 2017 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), The Adaptation Gap Finance Report, May 2016 OECD Policy Perspective, Blended Finance, Mobilising resources for sustainable development and climate action in developing countries, October 2017 Carbon Tracker Initiative, No country for coal gen - Below 2 C and regulatory risk for US coal power owners, September 2017 Only a rating committee may determine a rating action and this report does not constitute a rating action. NOVEMBER 23,

8 Copyright 2017 by Standard & Poor s Financial Services LLC. All rights reserved. No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an "as is" basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT'S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages. Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P's opinions, analyses, and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw, or suspend such acknowledgement at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal, or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof. S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain nonpublic information received in connection with each analytical process. S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, (free of charge), and and (subscription) and (subscription) and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at STANDARD & POOR'S, S&P and RATINGSDIRECT are registered trademarks of Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC. NOVEMBER 23,