With UN climate negotiations underway at COP28 in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE), climate finance has once again been one of the key issues countries have been clashing over.
The recently concluded process to design the new “loss-and-damage fund” highlighted known rifts between developed and developing country parties on finance provision.
One such rift is the lingering question of who should provide climate finance to help developing countries decarbonise their economies and protect themselves from climate hazards.
Traditionally, only a small set of high-income nations have been obliged to provide this finance under the UN system.
Some parties, including the US and the EU, have argued that this list should expand to include relatively wealthy emerging economies, such as China and the Gulf states.
As our analysis demonstrates, many of these nations already provide substantial sums of money that could potentially be described as “climate finance”.
In fact, large nations, such as India, Brazil and Saudi Arabia contribute to more climate-related finance via multilateral development banks (MDBs) than many countries in the global north.
Meanwhile, China could rival the largest developed-country donors even on direct climate funding for developing countries.
Different responsibilities
Current responsibility for climate finance under the UN climate regime lies with Annex II countries – meaning the high-income nations that were members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) when the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was signed in 1992.
These nations – including western Europe, the EU, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan – bear the obligation to provide a minimum of $100bn in climate finance annually to developing countries by 2020 – and up to 2025. (Developed countries failed to reach the 2020 target.)
Developing countries do not have such a responsibility, but they are “encouraged” to contribute voluntary climate finance under the Paris Agreement. This voluntary contribution aims to reflect the collective global effort required to combat climate change.
Yet, the heart of the ongoing political disputes lies in the nebulous categorisation of “developed” and “developing” introduced in the Paris Agreement in 2015.
This arrangement was viewed as a necessary compromise to replace the rigid and outdated lists agreed in 1992, which entrusted such financially divergent nations as Qatar and Malawi with the same climate responsibilities.
In theory, it opened the door for countries to self-differentiate their responsibilities and capabilities to reflect their evolving economic weight and influence in the world. To date, no developing country has made use of this possibility and formally pledged to provide climate finance.
As countries negotiate a new climate finance target for 2025 onwards to succeed the £100bn goal, developed countries would like to see the list of contributor countries formally expanded. There has been a similar effort to make countries such as China and Saudi Arabia contribute to the new loss-and-damage fund.
Top donors
Ongoing disputes about expanding the “donor base” for climate finance within the UNFCCC have overlooked the voluntary finance support that developing countries are already providing to other developing countries, in the spirit of solidarity.
Analyses from ODI and E3G have shed light on the magnitude of these contributions.
ODI’s research reveals that virtually all developing country parties are already providing “climate finance” through their contributions to multilateral institutions.
Large, middle-income countries, which are often called upon to assume climate-finance obligations, are already contributing “climate finance” for other developing countries through multilateral development banks (MDBs), such as the World Bank, and climate funds, such as the Green Climate Fund.
Accounting for these financial flows would place BRICS heavyweights – China, India, Brazil and Russia – among the top 20 providers globally.
Saudi Arabia, which alongside other relatively wealthy emerging economies has resisted efforts to broaden the climate finance donor pool, would also make the top 20. This can be seen in the chart below.
The bulk of these contributions are via MDBs. Countries pay into these banks for a range of reasons and their primary intention may not always be to provide climate finance to other developing countries.
However, they are still relevant, especially given that developed countries such as the US rely heavily on such MDB contributions when reporting their own climate finance.
Additionally, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico and South Korea have also made specific contributions to multilateral climate funds, which are clearly intended to be used for climate action by developing countries.
Bilateral flows
Crucially, these multilateral figures are likely to be a significant underestimate of the total climate-related finance provided by developing countries.
This is because they do not account for bilateral – or country-to-country – finance flows to other developing countries, such as those distributed via China’s South-South Cooperation Assistance Fund or the Belt and Road Initiative.
There is a lack of official data on these flows, but our analysis shows that they can be significant.
For example, E3G analysis of Chinese bilateral finance data compiled by research institute AidData shows that China has invested, on average, $1.46bn per year worth of climate-related projects between 2012 and 2017. (Data could not be assembled for the years after 2017.)
This includes both public and private bilateral investments, as well as aid in the energy, transport, water and disaster risk reduction sectors that could be described as either reducing emissions or improving climate resilience.
If the public portions of these bilateral financial flows are combined with multilateral flows, China would rank as the seventh largest provider of international climate finance to developing countries in 2017.
The nation’s $2.1bn of contributions place it roughly on a par with Italy and ahead of many developed countries including Canada and Norway in that year.
Reporting challenges
Despite these substantial contributions, the financial support provided by China and other large, middle-income nations to their fellow developing countries are going largely unrecognised by the international system.
One key reason is that developing countries are not obliged to report such contributions.
A fundamental reason for this is that these countries fear potential misinterpretation. Reporting such support voluntarily might lead to geopolitical expectations and pressure to assume “developed country” responsibilities, including taking more drastic actions to reduce emissions, our research suggests.
A change in status in the climate regime could also result in pressure on similar changes in other international regimes such as development finance or trade.
The under-delivery of the $100bn climate finance goal by developed countries also dissuades interested and capable developing countries from enhancing their voluntary support.
Although the $100bn goal is likely to have been met in 2023, it is hard for developing countries to rally the political support to send taxpayers’ money abroad, when rich countries are seen as not paying their “fair share”.
In addition, developing countries often lack the institutional and technical capacity to fully disclose their voluntary financial contributions.
The lack of transparency also extends to underreported commitments by other non-state actors, including corporations and financial institutions. These issues could be addressed collectively in ongoing discussions in the UNFCCC secretariat-led accountability framework for non-state actors.
New goal
Delegates at UN climate negotiations are set to agree on a new international climate finance goal, succeeding the $100bn, by COP29 in 2024. This target will include details on the sources of finance and likely reshape the climate finance landscape for the next decade.
COP28 could build the groundwork for a consensus on the so-called “new collective quantified goal” (NCQG), including an acknowledgement of existing contributions from developing countries.
The NCQG could do this while providing reassurance that the obligations of developed countries in leading the global climate-finance effort will continue, emphasising that voluntary contributions by developing countries will not be conflated with the politics of country categorisation.
It could even enhance voluntary contributions from non-developed country parties by considering the creation of some kind of “sub-goal” for them, while making it clear this would be on the basis of solidarity and not an obligation.
Such language could serve as a political reset, helping to rebuild trust in the international climate finance system.
The post Guest post: Why some ‘developing’ countries are already among largest climate-finance contributors appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Guest post: Why some ‘developing’ countries are already among largest climate-finance contributors
Countries are still debating whether to mine the seafloor for minerals, but exploratory efforts have already begun.
As demand for critical minerals surges around the world, countries are debating whether to mine the untapped deep-sea reserves of cobalt, copper and manganese, miles below the surface. But a growing body of research shows that these activities could have profound consequences for ocean ecosystems, and the industries and communities that rely on them.
Climate Change
IEA: Slow transition away from fossil fuels would cost over a million energy sector jobs
A slower shift to clean energy could leave the world with 1.3 million fewer energy sector jobs by 2035 compared with a scenario in which governments fully implement their green policies, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has found.
In its annual World Energy Employment report, the Paris-based watchdog said on Friday that the Current Policies Scenario (CPS), which it reintroduced under pressure from the Trump administration, has “more muted” employment growth than the Stated Policies Scenario.
The CPS sees oil and gas demand continuing to rise until at least 2050 – a scenario that the IEA described as “cautious” and “anchored in enacted laws and measures” and was widely criticised by clean energy experts.
A fast energy transition would spur investment in construction, creating more jobs across the sector. New roles for electricians, building insulators, solar panel and energy-efficient lightbulb installers, and transition mineral miners would more than offset job losses in coal mines, power plants and oil and gas fields, the report found.
-
Plans to turn Europe’s biggest coal mine into a leisure lake prove divisive
Transition experts say repurposing Poland’s Bełchatów mine and power plant for renewables not recreation could bring more jobs, revenue and electricity -
Scottish oil-town plan for green jobs sparks climate campers’ anger over local park
The oil and gas industry aims to bring clean jobs to Aberdeen, but it involves paving over part of a much-loved park, igniting a debate on just transition
Anabella Rosemberg, Just Transition lead at Climate Action Network International, lamented that the clean energy sector is “being undermined at a time when employment creation is of utmost priority”.
“Climate ambition and decent job creation must go hand in hand – but as the recent conversations at COP30 showed, there is a need for both the right targets and just transition strategies to make it happen,” she added.
A more ambitious Net Zero Emissions scenario, aligned with the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to 1.5C, would see roughly ten million more energy jobs created than under the CPS, report author Daniel Wetzel told Climate Home News at a press conference.
Bottleneck warnings
The IEA warned that governments must act to train workers for these roles or risk facing shortages of electricians, welders, and grid specialists – a gap that could slow the energy transition and drive up wages and energy costs.
IEA head Fatih Birol highlighted a particular shortage of qualified workers in the nuclear industry, warning that the problem could worsen as the sector’s workforce continues to age. “I hear nuclear is making a comeback, but the interest in the nuclear sector for the jobs is rather weak,” he said.
Laura Cozzi, IEA’s Director of Sustainability, Technology and Outlooks, warned of a shortage of skilled workers in electricity grids. “That is one of the key ingredients why we are not seeing grids ramp up as [they] should,” she said. Over 60 governments pledged at COP29 to improve and expand their grids to enable clean electricity to flow to where it is needed.
-
Migrant workers building Saudi Arabia’s green future face exploitation, report finds
Heat stroke, long hours and punishment for taking breaks – low-paid foreign workers compare jobs on Saudi renewable energy projects to a prison sentence -
Self-taught mechanics give second life to Jordan’s glut of spent EV batteries
As EV sales boom in Jordan, a lack of formal infrastructure for dealing with end-of-life batteries is leading to some innovative solutions
Bert De Wel, Global Coordinator for Climate Policy at the International Trade Union Confederation, celebrated that the energy transition is creating jobs but added that they should be good jobs with decent pay, conditions and union rights. Decent work would attract skilled workers, he added.
The report found that wages in the oil and gas industry have generally risen faster over the past year than in the solar – and especially the wind – sectors. It noted that the oil and gas industry has a “historical tendency to offer highly competitive wages to attract and retain top talent”.
At the COP30 climate summit, governments agreed to set up the Belém Action Mechanism to try and make the energy transition fairer to groups such as workers in the energy industry. It will give trade unions a formal role in shaping just transition policies, for what the ITUC says is the first time.
ITUC General Secretary Luc Triangle called it a “decisive win for the union movement and working people across the world, in all sectors but especially those in transition industries.”
The post IEA: Slow transition away from fossil fuels would cost over a million energy sector jobs appeared first on Climate Home News.
IEA: Slow transition away from fossil fuels would cost over a million energy sector jobs
Climate Change
DeBriefed 5 December: Deadly Asia floods; Adaptation finance target examined; Global south IPCC scientists speak out
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
This week
Deadly floods in Asia
MOUNTING DEVASTATION: The Associated Press reported that the death toll from catastrophic floods in south-east Asia had reached 1,500, with Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Thailand most affected and hundreds still missing. The newswire said “thousands” more face “severe” food and clean-water shortages. Heavy rains and thunderstorms are expected this weekend, it added, with “saturated soil and swollen rivers leaving communities on edge”. Earlier in the week, Bloomberg said the floods had caused “at least $20bn in losses”.
CLIMATE CHANGE LINKS: A number of outlets have investigated the links between the floods and human-caused climate change. Agence France-Presse explained that climate change was “producing more intense rain events because a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture and warmer oceans can turbocharge storms”. Meanwhile, environmental groups told the Associated Press the situation had been exacerbated by “decades of deforestation”, which had “stripped away natural defenses that once absorbed rainfall and stabilised soil”.
‘NEW NORMAL’: The Associated Press quoted Malaysian researcher Dr Jemilah Mahmood saying: “South-east Asia should brace for a likely continuation and potential worsening of extreme weather in 2026 and for many years.” Al Jazeera reported that the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies had called for “stronger legal and policy frameworks to protect people in disasters”. The organisation’s Asia-Pacific director said the floods were a “stark reminder that climate-driven disasters are becoming the new normal”, the outlet said.
Around the world
- REVOKED: The UK and Netherlands withdrew $2.2bn of financial backing from a controversial liquified natural gas (LNG) project in Mozambique, Reuters reported. The Guardian noted that TotalEnergies’ “giant” project stood accused of “fuelling the climate crisis and deadly terror attacks”.
- REVERSED: US president Donald Trump announced plans to “significantly weaken” Biden-era fuel efficiency requirements for cars, the New York Times said.
- RESTRICTED: EU leaders agreed to ban the import of Russian gas from autumn 2027, the Financial Times reported. Meanwhile, Reuters said it is “likely” the European Commission will delay announcing a plan on auto sector climate targets next week, following pressure to “weaken” a 2035 cut-off for combustion engines.
- RETRACTED: An influential Nature study that looked at the economic consequences of climate change has been withdrawn after “criticism from peers”, according to Bloomberg. [The research came second in Carbon Brief’s ranking of the climate papers most covered by the media in 2024.]
- REBUKED: The federal government of Canada faced a backlash over an oil pipeline deal struck last week with the province of Alberta. CBC News noted that First Nations chiefs voted “unanimously” to demand the withdrawal of the deal and Canada’s National Observer quoted author Naomi Klein as saying that the prime minister was “completely trashing Canada’s climate commitments”.
- RESCHEDULED: The Indonesian government has cancelled plans to close a coal plant seven years early, Bloomberg reported. Meanwhile, Bloomberg separately reported that India is mulling an “unprecedented increase” in coal-power capacity that could see plants built “until at least 2047”.
$518 billion a year
The projected coastal flood damages for the Asia-Pacific region by 2100 if current policies continue, according to a Scientific Reports study covered this week by Carbon Brief.
Latest climate research
- More than 100 “climate-sensitive rivers” worldwide are experiencing “large and severe changes in streamflow volume and timing” | Environmental Research Letters
- Africa’s forests have switched from a carbon sink into a source | Scientific Reports
- Increasing urbanisation can “substantially intensify warming”, contributing up to 0.44C of additional temperature rise per year through 2060 | Communications Earth & Environment
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)
Captured
A new target for developed nations to triple adaptation finance by 2035, agreed at the COP30 climate summit, would not cover more than a third of developing countries’ estimated needs, Carbon Brief analysis showed. The chart above compares a straight line to meeting the adaptation finance target (blue), alongside an estimate of countries’ adaptation needs (grey), which was calculated using figures from the latest UN Environmental Programme adaptation gap report, based on countries’ UN climate plans (called “nationally determined contributions” or NDCs) and national adaptation plans (NAPs).
Spotlight
Inclusivity at the IPCC
This week, Carbon Brief speaks to an IPCC lead author researching ways to improve the experience of global south scientists taking part in producing the UN climate body’s assessments.
Hundreds of climate scientists from around the world met in Paris this week to start work on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) newest set of climate reports.
The IPCC is the UN body responsible for producing the world’s most authoritative climate science reports. Hundreds of scientists from across the globe contribute to each “assessment cycle”, which sees researchers aim to condense all published climate science over several years into three “working group” reports.
The reports inform the decisions of governments – including at UN climate talks – as well as the public understanding of climate change.
The experts gathering in Paris are the most diverse group ever convened by the IPCC.
Earlier this year, Carbon Brief analysis found that – for the first time in an IPCC cycle – citizens of the global south make up 50% of authors of the three working group reports. The IPCC has celebrated this milestone, with IPCC chair Prof Jim Skea touting the seventh assessment report’s (AR7’s) “increased diversity” in August.
But some IPCC scientists have cautioned that the growing involvement of global south scientists does not translate into an inclusive process.
“What happens behind closed doors in these meeting rooms doesn’t necessarily mirror what the diversity numbers say,” Dr Shobha Maharaj, a Trinidadian climate scientist who is a coordinating lead author for working group two (WG2) of AR7, told Carbon Brief.
Global south perspective
Motivated by conversations with colleagues and her own “uncomfortable” experience working on the small-islands chapter of the sixth assessment cycle (AR6) WG2 report, Maharaj – an adjunct professor at the University of Fiji – reached out to dozens of fellow contributors to understand their experience.
The exercise, she said, revealed a “dominance of thinking and opinions from global north scientists, whereas the global south scientists – the scientists who were people of colour – were generally suppressed”.
The perspectives of scientists who took part in the survey and future recommendations for the IPCC are set out in a peer-reviewed essay – co-authored by 20 researchers – slated for publication in the journal PLOS Climate. (Maharaj also presented the findings to the IPCC in September.)
The draft version of the essay notes that global south scientists working on WG2 in AR6 said they confronted a number of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) issues, including “skewed” author selection, “unequal” power dynamics and a “lack of respect and trust”. The researchers also pointed to logistical constraints faced by global south authors, such as visa issues and limited access to journals.
The anonymous quotations from more than 30 scientists included in the essay, Maharaj said, are “clear data points” that she believes can advance a discussion about how to make academia more inclusive.
“The literature is full of the problems that people of colour or global south authors have in academia, but what you don’t find very often is quotations – especially from climate scientists,” she said. “We tend to be quite a conservative bunch.”
Road to ‘improvement’
Among the recommendations set out in the essay are for DEI training, the appointment of a “diversity and inclusion ombudsman” and for updated codes of conduct.
Marharaj said that these “tactical measures” need to occur alongside “transformative approaches” that help “address value systems, dismantle power structures [and] change the rules of participation”.
With drafting of the AR7 reports now underway, Maharaj said she is “hopeful” the new cycle can be an improvement on the last, pointing to a number of “welcome” steps from the IPCC.
This includes holding the first-ever expert meeting on DEI this autumn, new mechanisms where authors can flag concerns and the recruitment of a “science and capacity officer” to support WG2 authors.
The hope, Maharaj explained, is to enhance – not undermine – climate science.
“The idea here was to move forward and to improve the IPCC, rather than attack it,” she said. “Because we all love the science – and we really value what the IPCC brings to the world.”
Watch, read, listen
BROKEN PROMISES: Climate Home News spoke to communities in Nigeria let down by the government’s failure to clean up oil spills by foreign companies.
‘WHEN A ROAD GOES WRONG’: Inside Climate News looked at how a new road from Brazil’s western Amazon to Peru has become a “conduit for rampant deforestation and illegal gold mining”.
SHADOWY COURTS: In the Guardian, George Monbiot lamented the rise of investor-state dispute settlements, which he described as “undemocratic offshore tribunals” that are already having a “chilling effect” on countries’ climate ambitions.
Coming up
- 1-12 December: UN Environment Assembly 7, Nairobi, Kenya
- 7 December: Hong Kong legislative elections
- 11 December: Falkland Islands legislative assembly elections
Pick of the jobs
- Greenpeace International, engagement manager – climate and energy | Salary: Unknown. Location: Various
- The Energy, newsletter editor | Salary: Unknown. Location: Australia (remote)
- University of Groningen, PhD position in motivating people to contribute to societal transitions | Salary: €3,059-€3,881 per month. Location: Groningen, the Netherlands
DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.
The post DeBriefed 5 December: Deadly Asia floods; Adaptation finance target examined; Global south IPCC scientists speak out appeared first on Carbon Brief.
A New Tool Could Help Track Deep-Sea Mining Activity
Our Fix Our Forests advocacy in 2025
IEA: Slow transition away from fossil fuels would cost over a million energy sector jobs
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change4 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases4 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Why airlines are perfect targets for anti-greenwashing legal action