果冻影院

COP26, the recently concluded UN climate change conference in Glasgow, marked a critical turning point in global politics. From now on, the issue of climate justice will be unavoidable for rich countries.

The Glasgow Climate Pact 鈥渦rges鈥� rich countries like the US (referred to as 鈥渄eveloped countries鈥� in the text) to increase funding for poor countries like Bangladesh (鈥渄eveloping countries鈥�) to around US$40 billion (拢29.8 billion) annually by 2025, to help them adapt to mounting floods, droughts and other effects of climate change.

This is pretty strong language in UN speak and is welcome support. But the rich world has a history of failing to meet its financial promises. Only听80% of the US$100 billion听promised annually by 2020 to help developing countries mitigate their emissions and adapt to climate change has been delivered.

The failure to meet the amount developing countries need to adapt to climate change means the world faces a life sentence of escalating climate impacts. Those impacts that we won鈥檛 be able to prevent or adapt to are referred to as 鈥渓oss and damage鈥� in the lingo of international climate policy and they are already beginning to bite in the most vulnerable countries. The failure of COP26 to听commit to keeping warming below 1.5掳C听will mean more such loss and damage in future.

Some consider work on loss and damage to be听a form of compensation听for the harm rich countries have indirectly caused poor ones by disproportionately contributing to climate change with their greenhouse gas emissions. Others prefer the term 鈥渃limate reparations鈥�, and yet others talk about 鈥渟olidarity funds鈥�.

However you describe it, the fine print of the previous UN climate treaty, the 2015 Paris agreement, sought to squash any notion of developed countries being liable. But the outcome of COP26 shows that the issue of who is responsible and who should pay for the consequences of climate change can no longer be ignored. However, even the annual climate funding that has been pledged doesn鈥檛 include any money allocated for loss and damage.

The idea of听paying for loss and damage听was introduced with the first UN climate treaty negotiations in 1991 as something owed to small island states. But over the years, other groups, including the poorest countries and others across Africa, have begun to champion the issue.

Thanks to major advances in the field of听attribution science, there is growing understanding of the precise link between human-caused emissions and specific severe weather events. This relationship will intensify with every tonne of emissions, and for many of these climate-consequences, there is no turning back.

Heading into the Glasgow summit, delegates were mindful of the growing adaptation needs of developing countries. Adapting to climate change isn鈥檛 straightforward: even the UK, for all its wealth and its relative lack of exposure,听isn鈥檛 getting it right.

In the lead up to COP26, all countries were expected to update their climate action plans, known as NDCs. Recent听analysis听showed an increasing number were talking about loss and damage in their plans. This makes sense: as countries increasingly have to divert resources towards preparing for and responding to disasters like cyclones, or sea-level rise and melting glaciers, there will be less public financing available for them to cut their emissions and contribute to meeting the 1.5鈩� goal.

There was important progress in Glasgow. But much of this came from outside the negotiating rooms.

The negotiators working on loss and damage conducted their talks late into the night to flesh out what the听Santiago Network听鈥� a new way of offering technical assistance to developing countries 鈥� should be doing to support countries in a practical way. But progress was slow and calls to set up a 鈥淕lasgow Loss and Damage Facility鈥� which would have provided financial support for vulnerable countries听went unheeded.

Agreed instead was the establishment of a 鈥淕lasgow Dialogue鈥� to discuss funding arrangements over the coming years. This could be an important step to real, material support for vulnerable countries. But in some ways, this feels like deja vu.

COP23 in 2017 established a 鈥淪uva Expert Dialogue鈥� 鈥� a two-day workshop which produced a听technical paper听鈥� to explore information on finance for loss and damage. COP24 the following year and COP25 in 2019 pushed for the establishment of an expert group on loss and damage which was finally launched in early 2021.

Progress is incremental, but with all these dialogues it鈥檚 no wonder that young protesters decry this 鈥渂lah, blah, blah鈥� approach to climate action.

One surprise in Glasgow was the symbolic and material support for loss and damage which came from those outside the negotiating room. Scotland鈥檚 first minister, Nicola Sturgeon,听promised听拢2 million of funding to alleviate the impacts of climate change. This was augmented by a US$3 million dollar听pledge听from philanthropists. Since then, a Belgian provincial climate minister has also committed 鈧�1 million.

This is a drop in the ocean. It nonetheless represents an interesting twist in terms of who is stepping up to take responsibility for the harm that climate change is already causing and looks set to cause in the future.

This article first appeared in on 14^th November 2021.

Links

• Original article in
• 果冻影院 Political Science
• 果冻影院 Social & Historical Sciences