This year’s COP27 in Egypt entailed a vital goal of tackling the issue of funds for climate-vulnerable nations, whilst also helping developing countries transition from a coal-based to a green economy. This topic was named “Loss and Damage” and was a continuation from the failed attempts at COP26 to reach a decisive conclusion. But unfortunately, I wouldn’t exactly call this year’s Climate Summit a success either.
As we are all aware, extreme weather has hit nations such as Pakistan, where floods have killed over 1700 people resulting in an estimated $16bn needed for recovery. These events are occurring in many parts of the world; the recent Indonesian earthquake and heatwaves in India and Nigeria – clearly accelerated by global warming and human actions. This has only just recently been acknowledged globally (hopefully allowing international cooperation to tackle the urgent issue). These events have highlighted the struggle many developing nations face due to our collective human actions – I say “collective”, but data and evidence show that ACs are the highest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. This fact has triggered controversy and debate around ACs compensating for LIDCs and EDCs which are suffering from devastating consequences of climate change. The elephant in the room has definitely been, “who should pay?” and “who is responsible?”.
According to data, the US, Japan and Germany are all amongst the top carbon polluters, which comes as no surprise to many of us. However, rapidly urbanising countries such as India and China are in the top three of the category, which is where controversy over compensating developing countries sparks. India’s never-seen-before heatwaves do deserve our sympathy, but when they are a top contributor to climate change, resistance from advanced countries develops. India’s population is expected to claim the title of the biggest population in the world, which can only result in further emissions, and hence it is vital that a solution is found to overcome this problem. At COP26 and COP27, India was pressured to meet their net-zero targets quickly, as well as exacerbating their coal phasedown commitments. However, we can’t expect so much from a country that has infrastructure built on coal itself and rely on it for 70% of their electricity. According to the World Bank, India’s poverty is a major issue which can only be worsened by a transition to a greener economy due to expensive investments (and hence a cut down on government spending on public welfare). This is why funding can be a key tool to fight this battle. China, also as a rapidly urbanising country, has the highest greenhouse gas emissions by far (almost triple the US). Similarly to India, they have made no coal commitment and cannot afford to simply act on their own in terms of renewable energy. Capital investments are urgently needed.
Despite COP27’s historic establishment of a funds agreement to compensate for the “Loss and Damage” caused by climate, it is certainly not official or well-thought out…yet. The structure will, theoretically, be setup by the next summit, but contributors and recipients have not been decided upon – an upcoming tedious task indeed, but so crucial, nonetheless. Realistically, I believe that this won’t succeed as soon as next year, simply due to ongoing current affair that are globally causing an energy crisis and therefore a financial devastation for many economies. The UN General Secretary, António Guterres, has been urging nations to prioritise international cooperation, however the Russia-Ukraine War has made it quite difficult to do so.
Regarding fossil fuels, COP27 has failed in achieving any goals that were needed to ensure the Paris Agreement is adhered to. Resistance from oil producers such as Russia and Saudi Arabia (the biggest producer of oil: 46% of its GDP relies on it) suggests a state of denial about the damaging effects of climate change. This want for protection of their industry is justifiable due to their economic dependence on fossil fuels, however they are not the ones facing the consequences of global warming first-hand. What was decided at the recent summit was that a “Low Emission” energy agreement was to be committed to, where fossil fuel production is allowed when paired with carbon capture technology to trap emission. But again, this is a step back from the successes of COP26 when countries were more willing to cut down on their harmful activities. Staggering figures have been published by the World Bank: 1.4% of GDP is needed (between 2022 and 2030) to lower emissions in developing countries by 70%. But for low-income countries this number is around 5-8%, demonstrating the necessity for funding by countries that can actually afford this.
Good news is there, though, as we saw the US, Japan and a few others close a deal that would provide $20bn funding for the shut-down of Indonesia’s coal power plants (being a huge coal-producing country and one of the world’s biggest emitters). Indonesia has committed to generate a third of its power from renewable sources, aiding its power sector to reach net zero by 2050 – a huge step which will hopefully inspire others to also aim high.
With our global population projected to exceed 8 billion by 2023, combatting climate change couldn’t be more important. And the first step to do so, I believe, is to give funding to those who need it the most and who can help reduce emissions the most. If we give funds to South Africa to invest in renewable energy, our global emissions will decrease by a significant amount. Not only does South Africa have huge potential for its wind energy, that can deliver more than enough power to its country, but also its solar energy due to its sunlight that can allow immense amounts of energy. This demonstrates why investing in countries such as South Africa can help mitigate carbon whilst also remembering how crucial it is that compensation is given to those who are suffering tremendously already.
