Record-breaking heat in China. Wildfires forcing Swiss villages to evacuate. Drought ravaging Spanish crops. As the costs of climate change rack up, a debate is surging among governments: who should pay?
The question has been in the spotlight since last week's climate talks between the U.S. and China, where the world's two biggest economies tried to find ways to work together on issues ranging from renewable energy deployment to climate finance ahead of this year's U.N. climate summit, COP28, in Dubai.
Given China's rapid economic growth and increasing emissions, pressure has grown on Beijing to join the group of countries providing this funding.
During the talks in Beijing, U.S. climate envoy John Kerry said the two sides would continue to discuss climate finance over the next four months, before the COP28 conference starting Nov 30.
"It's difficult to argue that countries like China, Brazil or Saudi Arabia should still be put at the same level as the least developed countries and small island developing states," a diplomat from one European Union country told Reuters.
The EU, today the biggest contributor of climate finance, has lobbied to expand the pool of donor countries that provide it.
Climate finance refers to money that wealthy countries pay toward helping poorer nations reduce CO2 emissions and adapt to a hotter, harsher world.
So far, the few dozen wealthy countries obliged to make these payments have not delivered cash in the amounts promised. That list of financing nations was decided during U.N. climate talks in 1992, when China's economy was still smaller than Italy's.
Now, some countries are calling for China to contribute. U.S. officials including Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen have noted that Chinese contributions would boost the efficacy of the U.N. climate fund.
Other countries under similar pressure include Qatar, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates, three of the world's richest nations in terms of GDP per capita.
So far, China has resisted calls that could group it alongside wealthy nations.
In a meeting with Kerry, Chinese Premier Li Qiang stressed that developed countries should deliver their unfulfilled climate finance commitments and take the lead in cutting emissions, according to Li's office. He suggested developing countries could make contributions "within their capabilities."
That resistance suggests the effort faces serious challenges. Changing the official U.N. donor list would require international consensus.
"There is much too much resistance among countries like China and Saudi Arabia to touch the official definition," one EU official said on condition of anonymity.
Advocates for the change argue that an expansion needs to happen before a new - and, likely, far bigger - U.N. target for climate finance kicks in after 2025. Countries still need to negotiate the size of that target and who will contribute to it.
"All countries that are able, must contribute to global climate finance," said Ambassador Pa'olelei Luteru, who chairs the Alliance of Small Island States.
The bigger issue, Luteru said, is which of the poor and most vulnerable countries will be in line to receive it.
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?
The U.N. climate financing arrangement is based on the principle that rich countries have a greater responsibility to tackle climate change, because they have contributed the bulk of the CO2 emissions heating the planet since the industrial revolution.
The United States' historical CO2 emissions are bigger than those of any other country, but China today is the world's biggest CO2 emitter in terms of pollution produced each year.
Countries will face the question of historical responsibility at COP28, as they aim to launch a new fund to compensate vulnerable states for costs already being incurred in climate-fueled natural disasters.
The EU dropped its years-long resistance to that fund last year, but on the condition that a larger group of countries pay into it. Countries have not yet decided who will contribute.
The United States has been cagey about making payments that could be seen as reparations for climate change.
Some countries not obliged to contribute to U.N. climate funds have done so anyway, including South Korea and Qatar. Others have begun channelling aid through other channels.
China launched the South-South Climate Cooperation fund in 2015 to help least developed countries' tackle climate issues, and so far has delivered about 10% of the $3.1 billion pledged, according to think tank E3G.
That's a fraction of the hundreds of billions that Beijing is spending on its Belt and Road Initiative, backing projects including oil pipelines and ports.
Such arrangements allow countries to contribute without obligation, although if done outside of U.N. funds they can face less stringent criteria for public reporting - making it harder to track where the money is going and how much is paid.
Byford Tsang, a senior policy advisor at E3G, said a Chinese offer of more climate finance would be a "win-win" for Beijing. "It would earn China diplomatic clout, and pressure Western donors to raise their stakes on climate finance," he said.
Some vulnerable countries, frustrated with the flagging finance to date, are looking to new sources for cash. The Barbados-led Bridgetown Initiative is pushing for a revamp of multilateral development banks so they can offer more support for climate projects. Other nations have rallied behind a global CO2 levy on shipping to raise funds.
© Thomson Reuters 2023.
32 Comments
Login to comment
virusrex
To mitigate the effects of the human activity derived disaster? any country that can, because if not enough is done on time every country of the planet will pay a much higher price.
Algernon LaCroix
Everyone will cop it, except for the usual suspects of course - the same ones enforcing the ESG scam but wealthy and powerful enough to ignore or absorb and pass on the costs of their own edicts.
People in developed countries will cop it through ever-escalating energy costs for unreliable, expensive "renewable energy" produced with raw materials mined by what's essentially slave labour in poor countries and that pollute indefinitely once discarded. These high energy costs push up the price of everything else too, so everyday items will cost much more. And with nuclear being a dirty word, reliable baseload power is out of the question unless we can change the minds of governments and the fearful that new nuclear plants are very safe and produce very little waste, which can be securely stored.
People who can't afford to trade in their old car for an EV will also be at a huge disadvantage because crooked governments are trying to legislate petrol and diesel cars out of existence, making their current cars worthless. In the meantime they'll be gouged with higher taxes on fossil fuels and charged for driving on urban roads, think the UK's ULEZ and the UN's utopia of 15-Minute Cities. Sounds nice on the surface, but dystopian when people won't be able to afford to go any further! So they'll have to rely on public transport. "You'll own nothing and be happy!" Where have we heard that before...
Poor countries will cop it as well if they abide by any of these accords or agreements because the people there will be denied the cheap, reliable energy that's essential for development that raises standards of living, which in turn makes environmental protection affordable. In any case, China will do what China does, claiming developing nation status while building fossil fuel-powered power stations at home while raping the resources from Africa to see their unreliable junk solar panels and windmills overseas to coutnrties determined to undermine their own economies.
So, nobody wins but the scammers right at the top.
Or you could just stop complying with this BS and fight back by first going after the local councils and choosing to deal with companies that reject the ESG scam, and give carbon credits the finger next time you fly.
Garthgoyle
It all comes down to money and not to environmental responsibility and impact.
Raw Beer
They have contributed much of the man-made CO2, which is a very small fraction of the total CO2 in the atmosphere.
Human influence on climate is minimal, if any. Any measure that will be adopted will have no significant effect on climate, it will only transfer wealth to a select few...
Sven Asai
Of course everyone will pay and suffer one way or another. If all burden is now put onto developed countries, go ahead, than there’s of course less left for humanitarian aid or vaccines production etc and they will die or starve in masses in the underdeveloped world too or even more than now. The new saying will go, If the cat’s away also the mice won’t play.
virusrex
The point is that the CO2 produced by humans is what originates climate change, that is not disputed and is a well recognized fact by the scientific community (again, you have repeatedly failed to produce a reference where any recognized institution of science in any country of the world disagrees with this).
No, it is not as recognized by the scientists, against which your personal appeal to authority to contradict them is not valid. They also say measures can effectively mitigate the changes, once again they are a much more trust worthy source of scientific information.
gcFd1
There might be some agreement on this issue if climate change ever comes to take effect.
kohakuebisu
ULEZ is about children not dying of asthma, not about climate change. Air pollution is known to have severe health effects, like impairing brain activity. Hands up everyone who wishes Tokyo and other Japanese cities had dirtier air, that they hadn't banned conventional diesel cars twenty years ago? No, me neither.
Raw Beer
It certainly is disputed. Just because scientific associations and journals have been captured (as demonstrated by the Climategate scandal), doesn't mean we have to accept their conclusions.
virusrex
There is already agreement about the most important issue (that climate change is real and something needs to be done to limit its impact), and climate change is already causing negative effects around the globe.
Raw Beer
Yes, good point. I'm all for doing everything we can to reduce air pollution.
I just have a problem when people call CO2 pollution.
virusrex
There is no need to call CO2 a pollutant to make the argument that its emissions have to be controlled.
albaleo
NASA data says CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 280 ppm to 412ppm since the start of the industrial age (and from 370ppm since the year 2000). I think even those who are somewhat skeptical of the effects of that increase (sometimes called lukewarmers) don't dispute the increase is mainly from human activity. While nature produces lots of CO2, it also removes it from the atmosphere. It is the increase in the leftover amount that is of concern.
Raw Beer
Yet, only about 5% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is derived from human activity....
albaleo
I don't get your point. About 5% of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere is from human activity. But the important issue is surely how much CO2 remains in the atmosphere after most of it is removed by natural processes. That amount has increased over the years (see the numbers in my previous post). That increase is due to human activity.
virusrex
That is completely false, 5% of the produced CO2 is produced by humans, but that is an extra 5% that is not part of the natural cycle so it accumulates. that is how 280 ppm becomes 412 ppm, that is NOT a 5% increment.
The scientific community of the worls say this is a real issue, obviously they are much more likely to be correct that nameless people on the internet that just claim to know better even without ever presenting any evidence.
virusrex
Because the scientific consensus is antiscientific? that is obviously not the case, this applies only to people that present zero evidence while pretending the best experts of the world are wrong.
That is not an argument, is an excuse for not having one, the same as trying to avoid dealing with the arguments and instead attacking the commenters, as if anything used as an argument was not what the experts of the world are saying, they are the ones that you have to demonstrate as wrong to defend your claim.
And no, impossible global conspiracies are not a valid argument either.
GreenPeas
@albaleo
But the important issue is surely how much CO2 remains in the atmosphere after most of it is removed by natural processes.
It’s not a big deal. Why? CO2 is denser than the surrounding air so it eventually falls back to the earth within a relatively short time and is reabsorbed back into the oceans or used as plant food etc. This is the reason for it being a trace gas in the atmosphere. When CO2 levels are at 280ppm plant life starts to die. Even an increase to 412ppm is nothing in the big scheme of things. CO2 levels have been much higher in the past (via ice core samples), and mans’ contribution of approx 5% of the 412ppm is tiny. The molecules are so far apart in the atmosphere that any warming effect is negligible and probably unmeasurable.
The biggest greenhouse gas by far is water vapour. It is water vapour which is responsible for regulating Earth’s temperature. Without it this place would be unliveable. So even though CO2 is a greenhouse gas it pales in comparison to H2O. There are many drivers of climate but almost everything is a result of the Sun’s activity and its cycles. We’re currently in an interglacial. Warmer temperatures mean more CO2 being released from the oceans over time as they become less frigid. When that cycle changes then CO2 levels will start coming down again. I know this goes against the narrative but ice core data show that CO2 levels follow temperature, not the other way round.
Raw Beer
So how is my statement completely false?
So according to you: 5% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is not derived from human activity, it is produced by humans.
gcFd1
True- an amount according to the experts that is negligible.
餓死鬼
Admittedly, I don't know much about this so I had a look around for some more information.
If I'm understanding what I'm reading correctly, water vapour isn't a cause of climate change because it doesn't stay in the atmosphere for long (especially compared to greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane) and there's a limit on the amount of moisture that can be in the atmosphere. However, as the air warms due to increased amounts of other greenhouse gases being pumped into the atmosphere by human activity, its saturation limit for water vapour increases, and the extra moisture amplifies the warming effects of aforementioned greenhouse gases. Sounds like a vicious cycle? Am I understanding it right?
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/02/common-climate-misconceptions-the-water-vapor-feedback-2/
https://climatechangeconnection.org/science/what-about-water-vapour/
Strangerland
There is a lot of gas in that statement...
TaiwanIsNotChina
Do you think that the plant and animal life today is compatible with CO2 last observed 4 million years ago? Do you think the clear shooting upward trajectory to even higher levels of CO2 is troubling?
albaleo
I don't think that is disputed. But the main argument is that increases in water vapor are a consequence of increased CO2.
https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3143/steamy-relationships-how-atmospheric-water-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/
Not sure, but I think that is one of the reasons that predictions of increased temperatures are higher than Arrhenius' original theory about CO2 effects.
virusrex
By misrepresenting the excess amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as if it was the same as the excess amount produced, which is obviously not the same thing. The excess produced accumulates, so it is factually wrong to say the almost double concentration is only 5% produced by humans.
As demonstrated, this is completely false, an increase on the concentration to almost double is not negligible and instead is what causes the climate change.
GreenPeas
No. On the contrary it’s to be welcomed because it means a greener earth and bigger crop yields. The small increase in CO2 from 0.028 to 0.04% over the past 150 years or so is mostly due to the effect of the Sun on the oceans. Warmer temperatures due to solar activity = more CO2 released. Around 93% of all CO2 is said to be sequestered in the oceans.
As for the effect of water vapour on air temperature think of the difference between night-time temps and day-time temps in places with high humidity vs low humidity. A dry place like a desert can be scorching during the day then freezing at night, and all because there is no water vapour to hold the heat/energy from the daytime sun. In places with high humidity like a jungle or Japan it’s the opposite.
Evaporation, cloud cover, humidity, ocean currents, volcanic activity and on and on have a far bigger influence on climate than CO2. The climate is self-regulating and changes naturally over time with Sun activity, so there's nothing to be concerned about. CO2 and “climate change” is political, it’s not an environmental or man made problem.
GreenPeas
Of the three places where carbon is stored—atmosphere, oceans, and land biosphere—approximately 93 percent of the CO2 is found in the oceans. The atmosphere, at about 750 petagrams of carbon (a petagram [Pg] is 10 15 grams), has the smallest amount of carbon.
http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html
virusrex
The scientific consensus is that this is false, climatic change is not projected to result in bigger crop yields.
Also false, no evidence indicates this is the case. There is no increase of solar activity nor a mechanism which this would increase the CO2.
The scientist do not think that, what evidence do you have to prove they are wrong and failed to consider this very basic variable?
If it was political you could bring a reference where any recognized institution of science in a related field says CO2 is not important and climate change not real, right? If you can't find any that means the problem is real and not just a political issue as you misrepresent.
No, they dont. You claim they do but have never been able to bring any reference to prove it, which indicates this claim is false.
Raw Beer
Nah, the increase in CO2 has resulted in a greening of Earth. Many studies show that, even NASA says so.
virusrex
Many studies from which you bring none? any reference where a scientific study concludes crops will increase with climate change?
NASA do NOT say "so".
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3124/global-climate-change-impact-on-crops-expected-within-10-years-nasa-study-finds/
Why make such an easy to debunk false appeal?
Wick's pencil
Not hard to find. Just Google NASA greener earth and you'll find lots.
One even mentions:
"Study Finds From a quarter to half of Earth's vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change"
virusrex
There is a link already in the comment, the NASA do NOT say crops will increase as the claim was made, it is even quoted saying some of the crops are projected to decrease very importantly.
This explicitly contradicts the original claim, not bigger crop yields.