Talking more about money than greenhouse gases may sound little like the fight against climate change. Finance seems to belong to a different terrain than CO2. However, and although less attractive, the success or failure of the Baku Climate Summit, COP29, is largely settled in the accounting books. “Agree on a “New climate finance is the top priority of this presidency.”said the head of the summit, the Azeri Mukhtar Babayev.
Behind the expression “climate financing” what there is, basically, is the money that developed countries (the global North) are willing to put in so that impoverished countries (the global South) stop using fossil fuels, that is, cut their CO2 emissions and adapt to the damages of the climate crisis. After all, that North became rich by burning coal, oil and gas almost exclusively for decades.
The reduction of emissions has to go hand in hand with this financing. If not, the countries of the South will not be able to cut
Pedro Zorilla
— Greenpeace Climate Change Manager
The person responsible for climate change at COP29, Pedro Zorrilla, analyzes that a summit that revolves around finances “can serve to make some sectors or bodies want to give it less voice because the result seems less ambitious, but it does not make sense.” . The reduction of emissions has to go hand in hand with this financing. If not, the countries of the South will not be able to cut back.”
Zorrilla, who is attending the Baku summit as an observer, explains that these states “do not have funds available to switch to renewable energy and abandon fossil energy.” Or they may be economically dependent, like Colombia with coal, on the exports of that fossil mineral. “Colombia has expressed many times that it wants to abandon coal, but to abandon it it needs to cover the workers in that industry and find new sources of income,” he concludes.
This idea is not exclusive to environmentalists. The UN states that “climate finance is necessary for climate change mitigation due to the level of investment required to reduce emissions.”
Also from the corridors of the COP in Baku, Javier Andaluz, from Ecologistas en Acción, remembers that “the climate fight has to advance in all countries and it is difficult to demand that a State abandon fossils if they are the only way to guarantee food.” or the education of the population.”
Regarding whether this issue reduces the public profile of the conference, Andaluz emphasizes that “the fact of having a COP on financing does, precisely, highlight the hypocrisy of the global North.”
“We thought that after the DANA in Valencia and Albacete the summit was going to arouse more interest in Spain, but perhaps it has been the opposite and the painful effects have taken away attention,” Zorilla admits.
At the heart of the Paris Agreement
The idea of providing money to alleviate climate change It was agreed by the countries themselves in 2009 – even before drafting the Paris Agreement – which then set a target of 100 billion euros per year for developing countries starting in 2020. That figure was only reached in 2022.
In fact, the famous treaty agreed in the French capital included that same concept in its articles. And not anywhere. The heart of the Paris Agreement is in Article 2. This is where it is stated that to respond to the “threat of climate change” we must keep global warming “well below 2ºC” and, if possible, limit it to 1.5ºC. Next, in that same article, it was agreed to “position financial flows” in such a way as to produce “low greenhouse gas emissions.”
The negotiations in Azerbaijan should be focused on obtaining one trillion dollars annually for the necessary investments in emerging countries
Report ‘Raising ambition and accelerating climate finance’
— Independent High-Level Expert Group on Climate Finance
In this sense, the task of this COP29 is to achieve a commitment on the new amount to be contributed from 2030. The Independent High-Level Group of Experts on Climate Finance has stated that “negotiations in Azerbaijan should be focused on achieving a trillion dollars annually for the necessary investments in emerging countries.” And 1.3 billion in 2035.
This group, co-led by Amar Bhattacharya, Vera Songwe and Nicholas Stern, has calculated that “any investment shortfall before 2030 will put additional pressure in the years ahead. That is to say, The less the world achieves now, the more we will need to invest later”.
For one’s own benefit: risks to peace
Javier Andaluz also points out another reason to comply with financial aid to the global South: “We cannot forget that guaranteeing a future for these countries helps to avoid conflicts that have the climate emergency as their root.” That is, it directly affects the self-interest of rich states.
In this sense, a group of countries on the Security Council issued a statement in 2023 that warned of how climate change can aggravate threats to international peace and security.” A year later, last October, the US Deputy Secretary of State, Richard R. Verma, warned that climate change ““It is increasing the severity of humanitarian crises, which adds geopolitical tensions.”.
The list of possible risks to peace is longbut these are impacts that exceed the response capacity of governments, such as, for example, transnational migrations of an unmanageable scale due to the scarcity of resources such as water.
However, “here what we are seeing is that distrust between countries is increasing,” describes Andaluz. “The situation is very tense. “Northern countries are diverting attention around the inclusion of new donors in the fund, that is, whether China should put up money.”
And, as if to agree with him, the European Commissioner for Climate Action, Wopke Hoekstra, called this Monday from Baku for “solidarity” and “responsibility” from countries that have made “enormous economic progress in the last two decades” to contribute to that new climate fund. “With wealth comes responsibility,” Hoekstra said.
“Rich countries say there is no money” – says Pedro Zorilla – we think there is money. Maybe it is not in the public accounts now, but there is money. “One way to achieve this would be to put a tax on the fossil industry to increase public revenue and do the same for aviation and maritime transport.”
#Climate #negotiations #money #danger #COP29
