As negotiations over the new climate finance goal get into high gear, divisions are sharpening over who should be required to cough up the money needed to help less developed countries shift to clean energy and build resilience to climate change.
For German Foreign minister Annalena Baerbock, all “those who can” and “in particular the strongest polluters of today” should step up, alongside industrialised nations. “Strong economies share strong responsibilities”, she said in a nod to G20 countries on Thursday at the Petersberg Climate Dialogues in Berlin, the unofficial curtain raiser for climate diplomacy.
Baerbock’s views are widely shared by other rich countries, but they face stiff opposition from the upper-middle income nations referenced in her remarks.
Those governments argue that the Paris Agreement puts the responsibility of fulfilling climate finance obligations squarely on the shoulders of developed countries and want to keep it that way.
Negotiators from China and Saudi Arabia spelled that out once again this week in Cartagena, Colombia, during this year’s first round of technical discussions that should pave the way to an agreement over the new collective quantified goal (NCQG) at COP29 in Azerbaijan.
“We will not entertain a renegotiation of the contributors and the recipients of NCQG”, said Chao Feng, China’s finance negotiator, on Wednesday. His words were repeated shortly afterward by Saudi Arabia’s Mohammad Ayoub.
More money for more action
The climate finance goal is the most important decision expected to be taken at this year’s climate summit.
Experts believe an ambitious deal can play a crucial role in getting developing countries, especially the poorest ones, to commit to stronger action as they draft their new national climate plans due out in 2025. Without clear signals on the amount and quality of money on the table, the fear is that governments will lower their bar and put the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5C beyond reach.
After over two years of discussions and with time shrinking, negotiators remain at odds over the most fundamental elements of the goal: how large the sum should be, what it needs to pay for, over how many years, and the best way to monitor the money.
At 4-day summit in Cartagena ending this Friday, negotiators are attempting to iron out some of those knots and sketch out the first outline of a deal.
In laying out his vision for the summit, the COP29 incoming president, Mukhtar Babayev, acknowledged in Berlin that finance is “one of the most challenging topics of climate diplomacy” and that there are “strong and well-founded views on all sides”.
“We are listening to all parties to understand their concerns and help them refine potential landing zones based on a shared vision of success so that we can deliver a fair and ambitious new goal”, he added.
For Marc Weissgerber, executive director at E3G, Babayev`s speech outlined “important elements of a multifaceted solution to the finance challenges, but what is needed are clearly defined diplomatic pathways”.
“It needs to be seen how Azerbaijan can contribute – as a bridge builder – to this essential challenge”, he added.
Moving past $100bn
Talks have also been strained by eroding trust following the developed countries’ failure to honor a pledge made nearly 15 years ago and mobilise $100 billion a year in climate finance for developing countries by 2020. They now “look likely” to have belatedly met the goal in 2022, according to an assessment by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) based on preliminary data that is not publicly available.
Germany’s Baerbock said on Thursday that industrialised countries need to “continue to live up” to their responsibilities and jointly fulfil their $100 billion payment”. But, to go beyond that mark, she urged “those who can” to join their efforts.
Baerbock argued that the world has changed since the signing of the UNFCCC framework in 1992 when developed countries that provide international climate finance made up 80% of the global economy.
Most developing countries strongly oppose any changes or reinterpretation of the treaty that would lead to a reclassification of a country’s status.
E3G’s Weissgerber said the question of more committed financial resources is linked with the development of ambitious climate plans. “Both sides must compromise”, he added. “The existing donor base needs to show that it can be trusted to honour its financial commitments, while at the same time, large emitters such as China and the Gulf States should send a clear signal of ambitious reduction efforts”.
Source of finance
Developing countries – excluding China – need an estimated $2.4 trillion a year to meet their climate and development needs. But, Baerbock pointed out in Berlin, those sums cannot come only out of government budgets already facing constraints.
So called ‘innovative sources of finance’ are among the most talked-about options to unlock additional funds. Things like wealth taxes or shipping levies have been rising up the political agenda this year, but still face either strong opposition or a lack of agreement over how the money should be used.
Much hope is also pinned on wide-ranging reforms of multilateral development banks to channel more money into climate action for the most vulnerable.
COP29’s Babayev said those institutions “have a special role” to play, but he expressed disappointment at the pace of change seen during last week’s Spring Meetings of the World Bank. “While we heard a great deal of concern and worry, we did not yet see adequate and sufficient action”, he said. “That must change”.
The post Tensions over who is going to pay for new climate finance goal rise to the surface appeared first on Climate Home News.
Tensions over who is going to pay for new climate finance goal rise to the surface
Jackie Chesnutt, who lives outside San Angelo, is tired of pollution from wells she says should have been plugged years ago. Experts say Texas rules allow companies to defer plugging wells for far too long.
Reporting for this story was supported by a grant from the Fund for Investigative Journalism.
Low-Producing Oil Wells in Texas Cause Headaches for Landowners
An interview with author Catherine Coleman Flowers.
The fourth installment in our special Earth Day series
When the sciences and the humanities; democracy and ecology, are all under common and increasing attack, the efforts of independent experts and researchers matter more than ever.
David Ritter
So often in life, our most authentic moments of joy are the result of years of shared effort, and the culmination of a kind of deep faith in what is possible.
A few weeks ago, I had the honour of being in Canberra, along with some fellow environmentalists and scientists, to witness the enactment of the High Seas Biodiversity Bill 2026 by our federal parliament.
This was the moment that the Global Ocean Treaty—one of the most significant environmental agreements of our time—was given force through a domestic Australian law.
If you are part of the great Greenpeace family, you will know exactly why this was such a huge deal. The high seas make up around 60 per cent of the Earth’s surface and for too long, they have been subjected to open plunder. Now, for the first time in human history, there is an international instrument that enables the creation of massive high seas sanctuaries within which the ocean can be protected. This is a monumental collective achievement by Greenpeace and all the other groups who have campaigned for high seas marine sanctuaries for many years.
But as momentous as the ratification was, the parliamentary proceedings were distinctly lacking in drama or fanfare–so much so, that Labor MP backbencher Renee Coffey felt the need to gesture to those of us in the gallery with a grin, to indicate that the process was over and done.
The modesty of the moment had me thinking about the decades of quiet dedication by many hands that are invariably required to achieve great social change. In particular, I found myself thinking about researchers. So much of the expert academic work that underpins achievements like the Global Ocean Treaty is slow, painstaking, solitary—and often out of sight.
I think of the persistence and tenacity of researchers as an expression of love, founded in an authentic sense of wonder and curiosity about the world—and frequently linked to a deep ethical desire to protect that source of wonderment.
In 2007, one of the very first things I was given to read after starting with Greenpeace as an oceans campaigner in London was a report entitled Roadmap to Recovery: A global network of marine reserves. Specific physical sensations can tend to stick in the mind from periods of personally significant transitions, and the tactile reminiscence of holding the thin cardboard of the modest grey cover of that report is deeply embedded in my memory. I suspect I still even have that original copy in a box somewhere.
Written by a team of scientists led by Professor Callum Roberts, a marine conservation biologist from the University of York, the Roadmap provided the first scientifically informed vision of a large-scale global network of high seas marine sanctuaries, protecting the world’s oceans at scale. Of course, twenty years ago, this idea felt more like utopian science fiction, because there was no Global Oceans Treaty. But what seemed fanciful at the start of this century is now possible-–and I have every confidence the creation of large scale high seas marine sanctuaries will now happen through the application of ongoing campaigning effort—but we would never have gotten this far without the dedication of researchers, driven by their love of the oceans. And now here we are, with the ability for humanity to legally protect the high seas for the first time.
Campaigning and research so often work hand in hand like this: the one identifying the need and the solutions; the other driving the change. Because in a world of powerful vested interests, good science alone doesn’t shift decision makers—that takes activism and campaigning—but equally, there must be a basis of evidence and reason on which to build our public advocacy.
So, I want to take a moment to think with love and appreciation for everyone who has contributed to making this possible. I’ve never met the team of scientists who authored the original Roadmap, so belatedly but sincerely, then, to Leanne Mason, Julie P. Hawkins, Elizabeth Masden, Gwilym Rowlands, Jenny Storey and Anna Swift—and to every other researcher and scientist who has been involved in demonstrating why the Global Oceans Treaty has been so badly needed over the years—thank you for your commitment and devotion.
And to everyone out there who continues to believe that evidence and truth matter, and that our magnificent, fragile world deserves our respectful curiosity and study as an expression of our awe and enchantment, thank you for your conscientiousness.
When the sciences and the humanities; democracy and ecology, are all under common and increasing attack, the efforts of independent experts and researchers matter more than ever. You have Greenpeace’s deepest gratitude. Every day, we build on the foundations of your work and dedication. Thank you.
Q & A
I have been asked several times in recent weeks what the ongoing war means for the renewable energy transition in Australia.
While some corners of the fossil fuel lobby and the politicians captured by these vested interests have been very quick to use this crisis to call for more oil exploration and gas pipelines, the reality is that the current energy crisis has revealed the commonsense case for renewable energy.
As many, including climate and energy minister Chris Bowen have noted, renewable energy is affordable, inexhaustible, and sovereign—its supply cannot be blocked by warmongers or conflict. People intuitively know this; it’s why sales of electric cars have climbed to an all-time high, it’s why interest in rooftop solar and batteries has skyrocketed in recent months.
The reality is that oil and gas are to blame for much of the cost-of-living pain we’re feeling right now; fossil fuels are the disease, not the cure. If Australia were further along in our renewable energy transition and EV uptake, we would be much better insulated from petrol and gas price shocks and supply chain disruptions.
Yes, we need short-term solutions to ease the very real cost-of-living pressures that Australian communities and workers are facing as a result of fuel shortages. While replacement supplies is no doubt a valid step for now—Greenpeace is also backing taxes on the war profits of gas corporations to fund relief measures for Australians—in the long term, we will only get off the rollercoaster of fossil fuel dependency and price volatility if we break free from fossil fuels and accelerate progress towards an energy system built on 100% renewable energy, backed by storage.
-
Climate Change8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
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 Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
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”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits