Last week the COP29 climate meeting in Baku ended in disappointment. On the key issue of finance, developed countries agreed to mobilize only $300 billion each year for developing countries, three times more than their current mandate of $100 billion, but well below the minimum of $1 trillion, as That was necessary according to all estimates. Even this nominal scale-up – needs are already in the trillions of dollars – is not going to happen immediately but only from 2035 onwards.
This is not the first time that the outcome of the annual climate conference has been disappointing. Each of them has performed well below expectations over the last 15 years. As a result, the discussions and outcomes of these summits have been almost completely divorced from the requirements to meet the temperature targets outlined in the 2015 Paris Agreement. While the science says the world needs to cut its emissions by at least 43% by 2030 from 2019 levels, all assessments of current actions estimate global emissions, even under best-case Even in India, there will be hardly 2% less by that time.
The groundbreaking agreement on climate finance in Baku could be the beginning of a resolution to climate talks.
naturally unstable
It is no surprise that the current international system on climate change has proven so ineffective. It is the only major multilateral system that is completely stacked against rich and powerful countries. Generally, the rules of any international forum reflect the prevailing balance of power, and are mostly in favor of the powerful, as they are the ones who decide on the rules. Climate change architecture, as represented by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1994, is completely against this norm.
In this system, the rich and powerful – a group of about 40, including the United States and most of Europe – are the main culprits for climate change, and the rules are heavily weighted against them. They are made solely responsible for cutting their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and providing funding and technology to help developing countries fight climate change. These responsibilities were largely determined along the “polluter pays” principle. Since developed countries were primarily responsible for GHG emissions over the past 150 years, it is only fair that they be asked to take responsibility for the cleanup.
However, equality and fairness are rarely the main drivers of international relations. How this climate structure was allowed to form, despite the full involvement of rich and developed countries in this process, is an interesting and intriguing question that has not yet been definitively resolved.
It was not until the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the predecessor of the Paris Agreement, was finalized that the developed world realized that this system could harm their interests and disrupt the prevailing global balance of power. The Kyoto Protocol carried forward the principles contained in the UNFCCC and assigned specific targets to each developed nation according to their “crimes”. The target had to be accomplished within a certain time limit, failing which they could be punished.
This is perhaps the only example of a multilateral system becoming inherently unstable.
dismantling begins
Efforts to abolish the system began soon after the Kyoto Protocol came into force in 2005 after the required number of ratifications. Although the US played a key role in finalizing the Kyoto Protocol, the country never ratified it.
The idea was to demolish the structure brick by brick, not all at once. The significant differences between developed and developing countries in the assessment of climate responsibilities were repeatedly targeted. This was done to ensure that the failure to meet the targets was not blamed solely on developed countries and was instead shared with all.
The first attempt to replace the Kyoto Protocol with a new agreement was made in Copenhagen in 2009 but failed. The developed countries worked for the next six years and were successful in Paris. But despite its implementation, the goals of the Kyoto Protocol were completely ignored by all developed countries till 2020. Many of them walked out of the Kyoto Protocol.
The Paris Agreement made fundamental changes to the way climate responsibilities were structured up to that time. Emissions reduction is no longer the sole responsibility of developed countries. However everyone had to “contribute” in a “nationally determined” manner. There were no set targets for developed countries; the decision to cut their emissions had to be made by themselves.
emissions reductions are insufficient
As a result, emissions reductions have not been as required. The EU is expected to cut its emissions by about 60% from 2019 levels by 2030.
America has been the biggest laggard. Despite being so publicized inflation The Reduction Act aims for the US to reduce emissions by only 50-52% from 2005 levels by 2030, which is about 45% from 2019 levels.
If the world is to reduce its emissions by 43% by 2030 from 2019 levels, equity and fairness demand that the US and EU should aim for around 80-90% reductions.
The Paris Agreement bridged the sharp gap between developed and developing countries on emissions reductions. But developed countries were still solely responsible for raising finance and transferring clean energy technologies.
weakening of financial responsibility
Developed countries argue that the scale of finance needs has increased manifold, and many other countries have prospered over the past two decades, so they should also be asked to contribute to climate finance. The first attempt to expand the contributor base took place in Paris but was not successful.
This was one of the main issues being discussed as part of the finance agreement in Baku, and some criteria were suggested to include more countries. But developing countries managed to fail it again. Essentially, China, which had been the target of the expansion effort, backed off.
In the bargain, developed countries limited the amount of climate finance they could raise – $300 billion and no more.
The disintegration of the international climate structure is occurring at every level, leading to a steady decline in the confidence of developing countries.
However, it is still the only multilateral forum where small countries like Tuvalu or the Marshall Islands have a voice, and is an influential forum.
These countries also benefit from getting some climate money. It’s not enough but it’s better than nothing.
Climate talks will likely remain of limited utility for some time yet. However, its effectiveness as a global platform to fight climate change continues to decline.