revenue), incidence (who really pays for the climate change mitigation and adaptation actions - should avoid payment by developing countries or inclusion of developing countries’ contribution in counting towards 100billion, practicality (feasibility before 2020), reliability, additionality to Official Development Assistance and acceptability (domestic political acceptability in both developed and developing countries). Criticism Critics claimed that the group could contribute to the downgrading of UNFCCC negotiations, as well as complaining of a lack of transparency and a significant gender bias. Also, some civil society organizations do not agree that US 100 billion per year is sufficient for climate change financing, but overall, NGOs are content with the pressure on developed countries brought by the AGF report. Response The United States government rejected all new innovative sources at international scale proposed in the AGF report, namely, Financial Transaction Tax (FTTs), Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), and Bunker Fuels in the Maritime and Aviation Sector. Although the cap-and-trade bill was rejected at the Congress in 2010, the U.S. government still considers a carbon market as the more viable way to finance climate change activities. The European Union in general favors innovative sources. With the fate of the Kyoto Protocol undetermined beyond 2012, the EU has limited offset projects in Least Developed Countries. Under the G20 leadership of the French presidency, the EU considered a Financial Transaction Tax at the European Union level, and channel the revenue for climate, health, education and other international development purposes. A detailed report was published stating European Commission's response to the AGF report. Although "takes note" is relatively weak wording, the report was referenced in all submissions to the UNFCCC regarding climate finance, especially innovative sources. Outside the UNFCCC system, the AGF report is extensively referenced in climate financing discussions at the G20, European Union, International Maritime Organization, and other international forums. As many other potential financing sources, accessing any new sources will require political will. Efforts have been made under the G20 to remove fossil fuel subsidies, but they were not successful once again at the recent G20 meeting in Seoul. Similar to the AGF report, there are many high-profile reports; addressing climate finance sources with a focus on innovative sources. The international community is making critical decisions on how to mobilize up to US$100 billion per year by 2020 based on recommendations in these reports. See also Economics of global warming Stern Review References Carbon finance Economics