United States: Finally, COP27 battles the oldest climate diplomatic front: rich versus developing nations. This time, the debate centered on whether it was time to redefine those limits and increase the number of nations needed to help developing countries cope with rising temperatures.
For a few tense hours on the evening of 19 November any agreement seemed impossible. However, after an all-night negotiation, nearly every country on Earth agreed to an unprecedented plan to finance climate reform for developing countries at about 6 a.m. Egyptian time on 20 November, increasing the number of contributors. And made a long-standing climate dream come true. Staff. And the weakest countries in the world.
However, COP27's other key goal—a global commitment to gradually reduce the use of all fossil fuels—failed, focusing only on "unsustainable coal" and leaving out oil and gas.
Also Read: 'India will become world's 2nd largest economy soon': Gautam Adani
As a result, despite the promise of a more equitable climate finance system, the world still faces a high risk of exceeding the global warming targets set out in the Paris Agreement.
In the past, tensions at climate summits have largely centered on the notion that developed nations, particularly the US, are unable to accept responsibility for their historic emissions by reducing their own carbon footprints and providing funding to developing countries. are unable. are unable. have failed so that they can do so. while also preparing for and paying for the effects of climate change.
Still a lot of tension. However, COP27 espoused a more practical question than any other climate summit, whether the time had come to expand the list of "developed" nations – and thus economically responsible – to the equation. Beyond what was outlined in the original 1992 UN climate treaty.
Negotiations over who will pay for loss and damage, also known as "climate compensation", have brought this debate to the fore. In the months leading up to COP27, there was a clear demand by developing country diplomats that a specific Loss and Damage Fund be created, operated by the United Nations,
Through which loss and damage payment can be collected and distributed. Many argued that leaving Sharm el-Sheikh without such funding would be a clear indictment of the summit as well as the general desire of developing countries to uphold the fundamental principles of the Paris Agreement.
Also Read: Kazakhstan says to EU: We can provide all 30 of the essential raw materials you need
He got his money on 19 November. The agreement "decided to establish new funding arrangements to assist developing countries in responding to loss and damage," even though it would not take effect for at least a year and set no fundraising targets.
The issue of who should be the payer and beneficiary was more contentious than whether the fund should exist at all. Developing countries, led by the European Union, pushed for more climate donors and fewer recipients.
He argued that any loss and damage fund should broaden the pool of contributors to include nations such as Singapore, South Korea, the Gulf states or Israel, whose per capita income and current levels of emissions place them in the responsible category. . ,
the wanted. Although a June analysis by the UK think tank Overseas Development Institute found that China's per capita income and emissions are still significantly lower than most countries on the traditional "developed" list, it is sometimes implied that China is too is included in this list.
Also Read: APEC achieves agreement on free trade in the Pacific and the effects of the Ukraine war
According to Frans Timmermans, executive vice-president of the European Commission and chief climate negotiator for the bloc, "If you go back in time to 1992, there are some countries that now have huge potential to support climate finance, which are off the hook." Will be out." , which is not worth it."
