Climate of Threat
The 29th session of the Conference of Parties (COP 29) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) met in the Azerbaijan capital, Baku, from November 11 to 24. The main issue before this session was the commitment of advanced countries to pledge adequate finances for developing countries to adapt to and mitigate the impact of climate change. It is already causing extreme weather-related events such as floods, droughts, hurricanes. It is also leading to soil erosion and unprecedented forest fires; and a rise in sea levels will inevitably follow leading to the disappearance of many small island countries. Climate change is impacting the world over. However, while the advanced countries have the resources to compensate for the devastation caused by it the poorer countries’ development is pushed back by years as they cope with the aftermath of extreme weather events and other effects of climate change.
As in the past, the advanced countries’ response to the greatest, indeed the existential crisis, before humankind during this COP session was disappointing. This is not surprising because it was in keeping their record of reneging on all their commitments on climate change since the UN recognized, over three decades ago, the extreme danger to humanity posed by the warming of the planet because of the industrialization undertaken by the advanced countries in the 19th and 20th centuries.
The last three decades have clearly shown that the dangers foreseen in the 1990s were understated. It is now recognized that climate change is becoming a danger to life on the planet as humans experience it at present. Yet, the advanced countries are simply unwilling to change their life styles or help the developing countries by providing them with clean technology or sufficient finances. Instead, they have, through the years, sought to shift more and more the burden of handling a problem for which they bear a historic responsibility to the developing countries. By doing so they are not only perpetuating the poverty of developing countries but are also harming themselves for the planet’s climate is indivisible. This is a matter in which all humanity will either swim or sink together though all peoples may not do so at the same time.
The crucial decision taken in COP 29 reads “Reaffirms, in this context, Article 9 of the Paris Agreement and decides to set a goal, in extension of the goal referred to in paragraph 53 of decision 1/CP.21, with developed country Parties taking the lead, of at least USD 300 billion per year by 2035 for developing country Parties for climate action”. Article 9 of the Paris Agreement prescribed “Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation in continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention. Other Parties are encouraged to provide or continue to provide such support voluntarily”.
Paragraph 53 of decision 1/CP.21 stated “… countries decided to deliberate on a new collective quantified goal (NCQG) to raise the floor on climate finance above the current $100 billion annual target, taking into account the needs and priorities of developing countries”.
The real issue therefore before COP 29 was by what extent should the figure of US $ 100 billion be increased to make a meaningful contribution for adaptation and mitigation to climate change. Naturally, these processes have to contribute to the sustainable development of the Global South countries. India, along with some other countries, pressed strongly that an ambitious amount far in excess of US $ 300 be given but the advanced countries were simply not willing to go for a higher figure. India was also upset at the manner in which the final agreement on this amount was arrived at by the meeting’s chairperson disregarding the objections raised from the floor. According to reports the manner in which the document was adopted broke convention. If this is so then it has set a bad precedent.
The question now is if the developed countries will be willing to even honour their commitment to spend US $ 300 annually as they have committed. The history of climate change negotiations, as this writer has pointed out in the past in these columns, is littered with broken pledges and commitments. Hence, if history is a guide then this commitment has little chance of being implemented. This is all the more because Donald Trump’s approach to the Paris Agreement during his incoming presidency is unclear. He considers climate change to be a hoax. He had pulled the US out of the Paris Agreement when he was US President. During his campaign he has emphasised that he is favour of a greater exploration of hydrocarbons on the US mainland. This includes digging for oil.
As the US is the world’s most important country its policies and actions will have a direct bearing on the world combating climate change. And, if Trump, once again, either pulls the US out of the Paris Agreement or, even if does not do so, repudiates the pledge of US $ 300 contained in the COP 29 decisions then inevitably climate change resistance efforts will be gravely damaged.
Of course, all countries must continue with their efforts to promote sustainable development and clean energy as an integral part of effort. This stated the fact is that the primary role in handling the impact of climate change and saving the world from catastrophe rests with the US. If its President is a climate sceptic then the planet faces a pessimistic future.
