Table of Contents
- 0.1 Developing countries responded with a mix of acceptance and anger, Politico reported.
- 0.2 “We are not ready to erase the definitions,” said a Brazilian negotiator, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
- 0.3 Battle lines are formed
- 0.4 He compared the sum of 1.3 billion dollars by offering someone a “dropper to fill the ocean,” AP writes.
- 1 **Considering the emergence of new funding sources and potential debt burdens, how can the international community ensure that climate finance mechanisms are both equitable and effective in supporting sustainable development in developing countries?**
Early Sunday, the countries agreed to a deal that requires rich, developed nations to pay at least $300 billion to help poorer countries shift their economies away from polluting fuels, ending two weeks of contentious talks that threatened in many places to fall apart.
The figure is less than what developing countries have been calling for and out of line with the trillions they will need over the next decade. But it was probably the best they could get at a time of geopolitical turbulence and deepening divisions between richer and poorer nations, with a second era of Donald Trump in Washington looming.
Developing countries responded with a mix of acceptance and anger, Politico reported.
“This was staged and we are extremely, extremely disappointed,” Chandni Raina, India’s negotiator, told the plenary after the hammer fell. Calling the sum “paltry” and the deal “nothing more than an optical illusion”, she said her country – the most populous on Earth – “opposes the adoption of this document”.
Tina Stege, the Marshall Islands’ climate envoy, condemned the climate talks as a display of “political opportunism”, adding: “We are leaving with a fraction of the funding that climate-vulnerable countries urgently need. It’s not enough, but it’s a start.”
It ended up being a deal between old and new powers, a staunch Saudi oil state and a Democratic U.S. government that staked its legacy on climate leadership but knows its priorities will take at least a four-year hiatus while Trump occupies the White House .
The talks also produced a deal that sets the rules for global carbon markets, a profit-driven means of raising climate money, after a decade of negotiations. It could help countries meet their global climate goals and provide money to developing nations if they can overcome the non-performing loan problems that plague existing voluntary markets.
But the bigger prize was the new funding goal and all that came with it. $300 billion or more will come from public finances and related cash transfers, including money delivered through multilateral development banks from many countries – even developing ones like China.
This has effectively drawn China and other developing nations, which already contribute to the World Bank and other international financial institutions, to help rich countries meet their new obligations.
The EU and the US have been pushing for China and other heavy-polluting emerging economies to join them as participants in the new financial target, and this provision allows the EU, the UK and the US to claim a partial victory.
The deal also opened up the possibility for developing nations like China to contribute even more, or not, on a voluntary basis without their developing country status being reclassified – which could also allow both countries to claim victory.
“We are not ready to erase the definitions,” said a Brazilian negotiator, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
The final text package is a reference to an agreement at last year’s climate summit, in which countries pledged to abandon the use of fossil fuels, but this time did so without directly referring to the energy sources that cause climate change. Nor did it outline actions to accelerate that goal, which European and American negotiators had been pushing for. That push was rebuffed by the Saudi delegation, along with a group of emerging economies that included China and India.
Battle lines are formed
The battle for money has divided rich and poorer countries. Richer countries like the US, Canada, the UK and Germany developed their economies by polluting oil, gas and coal and have the money to divert to greener sources. In developing countries, by contrast, tens of millions of people still lack electricity and government budgets are constrained, often by debt payments.
But division is even more complicated than that. Small islands and dozens of deeply impoverished countries have contributed a tiny fraction of the emissions warming the planet, and yet they are highly vulnerable to heat waves, floods and other disasters that warming causes. Then there are the oil-rich Gulf states and emerging economies like Brazil and India, whose greenhouse gas emissions are rapidly accelerating. And China is the world’s biggest carbon polluter, green energy powerhouse and second largest economy.
The financial battle has been a long time coming. And countries have spent the last three years preparing to resolve it at these talks, known as COP29. The new target replaces a 15-year pledge in which wealthier countries promised to provide $100 billion a year from 2020. until 2025 They did not fulfill this promise until 2022.
Greenpeace climate policy expert Tracey Carthy noted that the financial target provided no guarantees that the bill would not be covered by loans or private financing, rather than “free public financing that developing countries desperately need.” She and other Greenpeace representatives have called on the fossil fuel industry to pay up.
Fred Neju, Greenpeace Africa’s pan-African policy strategist, made some of the sharpest comments, calling the agreement “climate colonialism.”
He compared the sum of 1.3 billion dollars by offering someone a “dropper to fill the ocean,” AP writes.
“I had hoped for more ambitious results – both in terms of funding and mitigation – to meet the scale of the major challenge we face, but the agreement reached provides a foundation on which to build,” he said. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres in a publication in H.
The money needs to be sent urgently because many heavily indebted developing countries affected by disasters and lagging behind in the renewable energy revolution need it immediately.
dnes.bg
#COP #summit #ended #deal #lot #anger
**Considering the emergence of new funding sources and potential debt burdens, how can the international community ensure that climate finance mechanisms are both equitable and effective in supporting sustainable development in developing countries?**
## World Today News Interview: COP29 Climate Negotiations
**Introduction:**
Welcome to World Today News. Today, we delve into the recent COP29 climate summit and its impact on the global battle against climate change. Joining us are two distinguished guests:
* **Dr. Anya Sharma, renowned climate scientist and policy expert**, and
* **Mr. David Chen, international development economist**, for a nuanced discussion on the outcomes and implications of this historic agreement.
**Section 1: The Financial Deal and its Controversies**
* Dr. Sharma, the agreement calls for $300 billion in funding from wealthy nations to support developing countries’ transition to clean energy. Some have called this a “paltry sum.” How do you assess this figure in the context of the trillions of dollars needed to address climate change effectively?
* Mr. Chen, developing nations have expressed mixed reactions to this deal. Some see it as a crucial first step, while others argue it falls short of what’s needed. Where do you stand on this issue, and what factors determine a nation’s perception of this agreement?
* The deal also lists new funding sources, including contributions from developing nations like China. How significant is this development, and what potential implications does it hold for international cooperation on climate finance?
* Dr. Sharma, critics argue that this financing mechanism could lead to further debt burdens for vulnerable countries. How can we ensure that this funding truly benefits developing nations without exacerbating existing economic challenges?
**Section 2: The Global Divide and the Search for Common Ground**
* Mr. Chen, the article highlights a deep division between wealthy and developing countries. What are the underlying causes of this rift, and how can we bridge the gap to achieve meaningful climate action on a global scale?
* Dr. Sharma, despite this division, the agreement does explicitly mention a ‘loss and damage’ fund, which was a key demand from vulnerable nations. What does this inclusion signify, and how do you envision this mechanism functioning in practise?
* Mr. Chen, the article mentions that the deal lacks a concrete plan for phasing out fossil fuels. What are the implications of this omission, and what steps could be taken to accelerate the transition to renewable energy sources globally?
**Section 3: Looking Ahead: The Road to COP30**
* Dr. Sharma, with COP29 concluded, what are the key takeaways and lessons learned? How can these insights inform the preparations for COP30 and future climate negotiations?
* Mr. Chen, the article mentions the looming shadow of a potential second Trump presidency in the United States. How might domestic politics in various nations impact international cooperation on climate change in the years to come?
*sellor, what message would you give to world leaders, policymakers, and citizens who are advocating for effective climate action? What are the critical next steps to ensure that we build a more sustainable future for generations to come?
**Conclusion:**
We thank Dr. Sharma and Mr. Chen for sharing their valuable insights on this critical issue.
