Negotiations remain aground on how to deal with the loss and damage caused by the climate crisis in the most vulnerable areas of the planet
The footprint of the climate crisis is already spreading across the globe. Rising temperatures, weather extremes and the arrival of more and more storms, floods and droughts They already affect every corner of the planet. But although it is true that climate chaos is already invading the entire world, not everyone experiences it equally. While countries like Spain can recover from the passage of an extreme storm (such as the ‘Gloria’ storm a few years ago), in other areas of the planet this same type of extreme phenomenon can put an entire community in jeopardy. But who is paying the bill for all these weather disasters?
Related news
The Sharm el-Sheikh climate summit has placed this debate on the official agenda of the negotiations. It is the first time that the discussion about loss and damage from the climate crisis rises like this. Countries unanimously state the seriousness of the problem and the need to raise funds to cover climate damage. The debate now focuses on determining who, how and when should mobilize these funds. This is the point that, at the moment, is keeping the Egyptian summit negotiations bogged down.
These are the keys to understand the loss and damage debate which right now is leading the closing of the Sharm el-Sheikh climate summit and which, today, stands out as the biggest stumbling block.
What are losses and damages?
Who are responsible for the climate crisis?
The first point of discussion has to do with determining who is responsible for the climate crisis. And this is where, from the very beginning, you can find opposing opinions. Some argue that the climate crisis bill should fall on the countries that have historically emitted the most greenhouse gases and that, therefore, are the guilty of having first triggered global warming Y then fueled the global rise in temperaturess. Virtually all the developed countries of the global north would fall under this prism: from the United States to Europe.
There are also those who broaden the focus and argue that, beyond the countries that have historically polluted the most, we should include today’s largest emitters. In this sense, countries like India, China and Brazil could be identified among the ‘culprits of the climate crisis’ and, therefore, would become part of the states that must footing part of the bill for climate chaos.
Who are the victims of the climate crisis?
The second great debate has to do with exactly how to define who are the victims of the climate crisis. The broadest definition of the term includes most of the countries of the global south. But, as soon as we begin to think more about who exactly is on this list, the discussion becomes more complex since, in a way, it is problematic to include countries like Equatorial Guinea, Honduras and Sri Lanka next to a big emitter like India oh major oil exporters like Iraq.
Right now, at the Sharm el-Sheikh climate summitthe countries that are putting the most pressure to create a mechanism to deal with loss and damage are those of the group known as the G77 (in which developing countries are included) and the alliance of small island states (including a coalition of islands at risk of extinction from rising sea levels and extreme weather).
As it has transpired this Friday, Europe would agree to include in the list of “particularly vulnerable countries” small island developing states, but not all states in the global south. This definition, then, would leave out countries like Pakistan from the list of possible beneficiaries of aid for climatic disasters.
How is the money raised?
The big crux of Sharm el-Sheikh summit it is like establish an economic mechanism to finance the losses and damages of the climate crisis in the most vulnerable areas of the planet. Until now, countries have pronounced unanimously on need to raise more funds to deal with climate damage. What is not exactly clear is how and when to create ithow it should work, who should pay for it (and in what proportion) and who should be the main beneficiaries.
At this time there is three big proposals on the table: create a new loss and damage fund in Sharm el-Sheikh, agree to the creation of this initiative ahead of the next summit in Dubai or reinforce existing financial initiatives. According to sources close to the negotiations, all these options have their chiaroscuro. The creation of a new fund, for example, would help centralize finances but would take time to officially roll out. The reinforcement of other financial initiativesfor its part, would help speed up the flow of money but could be more complicated to manage in the long term.
How much money is needed?
In the background of this discussion is a figure that repeats itself over and over again: the 100,000 million dollars annually what are you doing a decade ago the richest (and polluting) countries on the planet pledged to mobilize to face the losses and damages of the climate crisis and that, today, still have not been able to meet. And it is here, around this figure, where all the previous debates come together. Who should mobilize these funds? In what proportion should each country contribute to the cause? Should they contribute more? those who have historically contributed the most to the problem either the ones that emit the most now?
According to an analysis of the ‘Carbon Brief’ platformif we put the largest emitters in history and their contribution to the climate finance fund on a scale, we would see that those responsible for this crisis are not providing enough money to mitigate its most serious consequences. USAconsidered the largest issuer in history, has contributed 8,000 million to this initiative compared to the more than 40,000 that he would have to pay. At least according to the balance of historical responsibility.
A United Nations report estimates that as the climate crisis progresses, climate disasters will also increase. By 2030, it is estimated that will need to raise between 140,000 and 300,000 million dollars annually to deal with the losses and damages of climate chaos in the most vulnerable areas of the planet.