COP29 climadal: historical breakthrough or disappointment? Reactions of the scientists
COP29 climadal: historical breakthrough or disappointment? Reactions of the scientists
A short-term deal that saved the COP29 climate conferences in Baku, Azerbaijan, is a "fragile consensus", researchers who deal with climate finance to nature.
relieved the COP of wealthy countries applauded in the early morning hours of November 24 after a short -term promise that wealthy countries will "take the lead" to increase climate finance for poor countries to at least $ 300 billion annually. Low and medium-sinking countries, especially China, should also contribute to international climate funds, which is a novelty for a COP agreement.
However,delegates from some of the largest developing countries, including India, Indonesia and Nigeria, were angry. Some accused that they were put under pressure to get a deal so that the cop session did not end in fiasco. In addition, it was not determined how much of the $ 300 billion is provided in the form of grants or loans, how much will come from private or public sources.
The current climate finance from rich to poor countries is over $ 100 billion and is expected to increase to almost $ 200 billion under a "Business-As-Uusual" scenario by 2030, according to a Analysis by Odi Global , a Think tank in London.
The disappointment about the result
"The financial offer for Baku was extremely disappointing," says Dipak Dasgupta, economist at the Think Tank the Energy and Resources in New Delhi and main author for climate finance reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
"Although there is a short moment of joy to have torn these cops out of the flames, old wounds between wealthy and poor nations were apparently apparent at this meeting," says Clare Shakya, head of the climate area at The Nature Conservancy, an international nature conservation organization based in Arlington, Virginia, USA. With the exception of China's exception,
Low and medium-sized incoming, the wealthy countries suggested that they need around $ 2.4 trillion annually to detach themselves from fossil fuels and to protect themselves from the consequences of global warming. This sum corresponds to the recommendations of a Influent Report , which was presented by scientists and economists. To get closer to a deal during the cop, more than 80 countries suggested a sum of $ 1.3 trillion.
"The promise of $ 300 billion a year until 2035 will not convince anyone that we will reach the required $ 1.3 trillion a year to meet the climate crisis," says Sarah Colenbrander, head of climate and sustainability at ODI Global.
The Trump factors
The agreed amount does not reflect a scenario in which the United States withdraw their global climate finance if an upcoming Trump administration withdraws from international climate agreements .
Before the COP, the administration of US President Joe Biden was obliged to provide $ 11.4 billion in climate finance annually by 2024, which corresponds to about 10% of the current annual global total. "There is no doubt that we will see an enormous hole in global climate finance, which is provided [by the USA] while the climate impacts are strengthening and piling up," says Shakya. In contrast, China has provided around $ 4 billion in climate finance every year since 2013.
The cop delegates also agreed that a financial “timetable” document in front of COP30 in Belém, Brazil, will be created, which should show how the countries will achieve the higher climate finance target.
"The Baku timetable to Belém is available for a good reason, and good practical science is urgently needed," says Dasgupta. "He needs careful care and no demolition bulb."