At the United Nations Climate Conference held in the United Arab Emirates last year, countries around the world Landmark agreement on the transition away from fossil fuels. After weeks of tense negotiations, the conference included a raft of unprecedented commitments, including expanding the use of renewable energy, adapting to climate disasters and moving away from coal, oil and gas.
question at This year's COP29 conference will be held in Baku, Azerbaijan, and how much that huge amount of effort costs. After many years of global debate over the amount of money that developed countries owe to less fortunate countries, decarbonization Negotiators have until the end of their December session to reach a hard-fought agreement on financial targets for climate change aid over the coming decades. The new target, dubbed the „new joint quantitative target“ by climate change negotiators, is aimed at adhering to the 2015 Paris Agreement and addressing the harms of fossil fuel emissions from developed countries like the United States. It is important. Some of the poorest countries in Asia and Africa have made only a small contribution to the climate crisis and, without funding, have little chance of transitioning their economies away from fossil fuels and adapting to a warmer world.
The last time the world set such a goal, it didn't work. Back in 2009, rich countries agreed to send to poor countries. $100 billion for climate finance That figure is less than half of the world's annual demand, according to World Bank estimates, and rich countries had not even reached that goal until last year. Still, some aid organizations such as Oxfam argue that these countries are overestimating or double-counting aid amounts. tens of billions of dollars. Meanwhile, international estimates of aid needs have ballooned to trillions of dollars. As a result, talks over climate finance remain fraught with frustration and mistrust, with diplomats who have been debating the goal for the past two years making little progress toward an agreement.
As dozens of negotiators head to Colombia later this month for the first of a series of preliminary talks laying the groundwork for a new goal, developing countries will take the failed $100 billion promise into greater focus. They try to use it as a lever to achieve their goals. dedication. After years of advocacy from climate-vulnerable countries, economic giants India and Saudi Arabia have formally called for climate aid to reach $1 trillion a year, pushing the numbers into uncharted territory as negotiations move into uncharted territory. ing.
Increasing climate change aid by more than tenfold could change the life prospects of millions of people facing the impending effects of climate change in poor countries in Africa and Asia, experts say. , says the astronomical numbers will be difficult for many rich countries grappling with inflation and domestic turmoil. . Moreover, without strong safeguards to ensure that funds reach the vulnerable communities that need them most, this effort will not mean much.
„It's good that countries are using the T-word because it reflects the scale of ambition we need,“ said Joe Thwaites, a climate finance expert at the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council. „This is because we are dealing with the issue.“ “But the key question is the political question of how to break through that.”
The world has known for years that the $100 billion goal is fundamentally flawed. That target was too low to match the increasing damage caused by climate change in developing countries. Approximately $2.4 trillion annually. And more than two-thirds of aid from rich countries comes in loans rather than grants, forcing poor countries to take on more debt to respond to climate disasters. Some countries also Seaside hotel and gelato shop It exaggerates its contribution to climate change support.
The slow pace of U.N. diplomacy has forced developing countries to wait more than a decade for a chance to discuss new numbers with their U.S. and European Union partners. Now that the opportunity has arrived, many of these countries are seeking to boost climate finance by expanding their demands to levels that once seemed absurd.
In a February letter to fellow Indian negotiators, claimed Developed countries will need to provide „at least US$1 trillion a year, consisting mainly of subsidies and concessional loans,“ or ultra-low-interest loans. Saudi Arabia, on behalf of a group of Middle Eastern countries, Said just a few days later „We have set a (target) of $1.1 trillion from developed countries to developing countries,“ he said, adding arrears for the failure of the last goal. According to him, there are only 19 countries in the world whose economy exceeds $1 trillion. Data from the International Monetary Fund.
The fact that India and Saudi Arabia endorsed this figure is significant. As the world's most populous country, one of the largest emitters, and the country with the largest still need for assistance to finance the energy transition, India has significant political influence in climate change negotiations. ing. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is one of the world's richest countries and is under intense pressure to join the United States and European Union in sending aid to poorer countries. So far, these are the only two countries that have been named in the numbers.
Experts say there are pros and cons to setting such an ambitious goal. On the other hand, aiming for the moon with very lofty goals provides poor countries with some cushion against the possibility that rich countries will not fulfill their promises. On the other hand, if voters and political leaders in rich countries do not support the goals, this strategy could backfire, leaving poor countries with little aid.
For example, the U.S. Congress has been wrangling for months over whether to send nearly $60 billion in new aid to Ukraine, with many lawmakers saying it would be a mistake to hold back on supporting the multitrillion-dollar global effort. do not have. Mobilizing climate change aid in a divided Congress Last year's challenging initiatives. Supporting new goals could even become a liability for President Biden and other pro-climate leaders as they look ahead to an election year.
This is what developed countries look like US, Englandand those in it european union The letter to fellow negotiators did not propose numerical targets. Instead, they are calling for a broader dialogue with, for example, Canada, on how to mobilize private finance and ensure that aid reaches the right communities. defend “A Practical Approach to Establishing Quantum (Target Size).” The U.S. avoids any discussion of size, focusing in its letter on which countries should contribute and which countries should receive aid.
“While this (trillion) figure better reflects the needs of developing countries, given the current constraints of developed countries such as changing geopolitics, energy security concerns, stagflation, and domestic politics. Achieving this will be a difficult outcome,” said Aman Srivastava. Climate finance expert at the Center for Policy Research, an India-based think tank.
But negotiators and climate advocates told Grist that the structure of the new goal is just as important as its final size. The $100 billion target was too low, but there was too much vagueness about what qualifies as „climate finance,“ and many wealthy countries are focusing more on lending and private investment rather than unconditional subsidies. I had left it there. These countries also tended to provide far more aid for renewable energy and energy projects than for flood and drought aid, which many countries have requested.
“We don't just need to talk about the quantum of money; we also need to talk about the quality of money,” says Sandra Guzman Luna, founder of the Latin American and Caribbean Climate Finance Group, which supports development. Countries in the region are tracking and accessing climate change aid funding.
![Cowherd boys pull a cow stuck in the muddy water of a dry pond in southern Zimbabwe. The county declared a national emergency due to drought caused by climate change and El Niño.](https://grist.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Ox-in-muddy-water-Zimbabwe.jpg?quality=75&strip=all)
![Cowherd boys pull a cow stuck in the muddy water of a dry pond in southern Zimbabwe. The county declared a national emergency due to drought caused by climate change and El Niño.](https://grist.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Ox-in-muddy-water-Zimbabwe.jpg?quality=75&strip=all)
Jinyange Antony/AFP via Getty Images
The most likely outcome is a structure that some negotiators liken to an onion with multiple concentric layers. The United States, the European Union, and other wealthy countries will spend large sums of public money in the form of subsidies on unprofitable projects such as sea walls and drinking water systems. Others will need additional subsidies from new contributors such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which have great wealth but have not contributed much to climate aid, as well as private loans from investors and banks. may be included. This approach Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Frameworkthe 2022 agreement to protect nature and endangered species also includes a “tiered” set of commitments.
But building such a complex structure for climate change support ahead of COP29 will be a daunting task. Despite new support for the $1 trillion goal, rich and poor countries are still uncertain about who should contribute to the goal, how much money should come from grants and loans, and whether rich countries should get their share. There remains significant disagreement over how money should be held accountable. Rich countries are advocating for greater flexibility in including private finance in aid contributions, with a broader group of donor countries including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Countries such as China and Saudi Arabia, with large economies but historically low shares of carbon emissions, are asking the United States and the European Union to shoulder the biggest burden.
With just seven months left until COP29, negotiators have yet to even put their ideas into writing, and a draft of a potential document is unlikely to emerge until the summer. From there, world climate leaders will do everything in their power to iron out as many details as possible before time runs out for a meeting in Baku.Thwaites compared the process to a puzzle game. rush hourthe player has to move several cars around the grid to make room for one car to escape.
„It's difficult to predict because even if you think you have a deal, things can break down,“ said Eleonora Cogo, a climate finance expert at Italian think tank ECCO. (Cogo has negotiated on behalf of the European Union in previous climate finance negotiations.)
Kogo said he doubted countries would be able to iron out all the details by the end of COP29, given how far apart they currently are. The most likely outcome is a basic agreement on „some core elements“ such as approximate size, and a promise to work out the rest later. This could lead to a variety of commitments, including strong commitments from rich countries to increase subsidies, weakened frameworks such as the $100 billion target, or anything in between.
“The demands on the table are very different and the starting points are very far apart,” Kogo said. “Everything is open.”
Editor's note: Natural Resources Defense Council is a Grist advertiser. Advertisers have no role in his Grist editorial decisions.