UN climate talks to focus on money to assist impoverished nations cut carbon pollution

BAKU, Azerbaijan — A complicated international two-week-long game of climate transformation poker is convening. The stakes? Just the fate of an ever-warming globe.

Curbing and coping with climate transformation’s worsening heat, floods, droughts and storms will expense trillions of dollars and impoverished nations just don’t have it, numerous reports and experts compute. As United Nations climate negotiations started Monday in Baku, Azerbaijan, the chief issue is who must ante up to assist impoverished nations and especially how much.

The numbers are enormous. The floor in negotiations is the $100 billion a year that impoverished nations — based on a categorization made in the 1990s — now get as part of a 2009 agreement that was barely met. Several experts and poorer nations declare the require is $1 trillion a year or more.

“It’s a game with high stakes,” said Climate Analytics CEO statement Hare, a physicist. “correct now the fate of the earth depends very much on what we’re able to pull off in the next five or 10 years.”

But this year’s talks, known as COP29, won’t be as high-profile as last year’s, with 48 fewer heads of state scheduled to talk. The leaders of the top two carbon polluting countries — China and the United States — will be absent. But if money negotiations fall short in Baku, it will handicap 2025’s make-or-shatter climate negotiations, experts declare.

Not only is dealing with money always a touchy subject, but two of the wealthy countries that are expected to donate money to impoverished nations — the United States and Germany — are in the midst of dramatic government changes. Even though the United States delegation will be from Biden Administration, the reelection of Donald Trump, who downplays climate transformation and dislikes foreign aid, makes U.S. pledges unlikely to be fulfilled.

The overarching issue is climate finance. Without it, experts declare the globe can’t get a handle on fighting warming, nor can most of the nations achieve their current carbon pollution-cutting goals or the recent ones they will submit next year.

“If we don’t solve the finance issue, then definitely we will not solve the climate issue,” said former Colombian deputy climate minister Pablo Vieira, who heads the back unit at NDC collaboration, which helps nations with emissions-cutting goals.

Nations can’t cut carbon pollution if they can’t afford to eliminate coal, oil and gas, Vieira and several other experts said. impoverished nations are frustrated that they are being told to do more to fight climate transformation when they cannot afford it, he said. And the 47 poorest nations only created 4% of the heat-trapping gases in the air, according to the U.N.

About 77% of the heat-trapping gas in the mood now comes from the G20 wealthy nations, many of whom are now cutting back on their pollution, something that is not happening in most impoverished nations or China.

“The countries that are wealthy today have become wealthy by polluting the Earth,” said Ani Dasgupta, president of globe Resources Institute.

The money being discussed is for three things: Helping impoverished nations switch from filthy fossil fuels to tidy vigor; helping them adjust to the impacts of a warming globe such as sea level rise and worsening storms; and compensating vulnerable impoverished nations for climate transformation damage.

“Should the global throng fall short to reach a (finance) objective, this is really just signing the death warrant of many developing countries,” said Chukwumerije Okereke, director of the Center for Climate transformation and advancement in Nigeria.

Michael Wilkins, a business professor who heads Imperial College’s Centre for Climate Finance and enterprise apportionment in the U.K., said since 2022 total climate finance has been nearly $1.5 trillion. But only 3% of that is actually geared toward the least developed countries, he said.

“The Global South has been repeatedly let down by unmet pledges and commitments,” said Sunita Narain, director general of recent Delhi-based Centre for Science and surroundings.

“Finance is really the key component that compels all types of climate action,” said Bahamian climate scientist Adelle Thomas, adaptation director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Without that finance, there’s simply not much that developing countries in particular can do.”

It’s an issue of both self-yield and fairness, Thomas and others said. It’s not charity to assist impoverished nations decarbonize because wealthy nations advantage when all countries cut emissions. After all, a warming globe hurts everyone.

Compensating for climate damage and helping nations prepare for upcoming damage is a matter of fairness, Thomas said. Even though they didn’t make the issue, impoverished nations — especially tiny island nations — are particularly vulnerable to climate transformation’s rising seas and extreme weather. Thomas mentioned how 2019’s Hurricane Dorian smacked her grandparents home and “the only thing left standing was one toilet.”

The trillion-dollar figure on the table is about half of what the globe spends annually on the military. Others declare global fossil fuel subsidies could be redirected to climate finance; estimates of those subsidies range from the International vigor Agency’s $616 billion a year to the International Monetary fund’s $7 trillion a year.

“When we require more for other things, including dispute, we seem to discover it,” United Nations surroundings Programme Executive Director Inger Andersen said. “Well, this is probably the largest dispute of all.”

A U.N. climate finance committee update looked at the require from 98 countries and estimated it as ranging from $455 billion to $584 billion per year.

The money isn’t just direct government aid from one country to another. Some of it comes from multinational advancement finance banks, like the globe lender. There’s also private enterprise apportionment that will be considered a large chunk. Developing nations are seeking relief from their $29 trillion global obligation.

Andersen said at least a sixfold boost in enterprise apportionment would be required to get on the path to limit upcoming warming to just another two-tenths of a degree Celsius (0.4 degrees Fahrenheit) from now, which is the overarching objective the globe adopted in 2015.

Andersen’s agency calculated that with nations’ current emissions-curbing targets, the difference between well-financed and current efforts translates to half a degree Celsius (0.9 degrees Fahrenheit) less upcoming warming. Experts declare stepped-up efforts that could reduce upcoming warming even more also costs more.

Who will pay is another sticking point. Climate talks for decades have used 1992 standards to categorize two groups of nations, essentially wealthy and impoverished, deciding that wealthy nations like the U.S. are the ones to financially assist impoverished ones. financial circumstances have changed. China, the globe’s top carbon polluter, has increased its per capita GDP by more than 30 times since then. But neither China nor some wealthy oil nations are obligated to assist in climate finance.

Developed nations desire those countries that couldn’t afford to provide before, but now can, included in the next round of donors. But those nations don’t desire those obligations, said E3G analyst Alden Meyer, a climate negotiations veteran.

“It’s a very fraught landscape to ponder about huge scale-up of existing climate finance,” Meyer said.

___

Associated Press reporter Sibi Arasu contributed to this update from Bengaluru, India.

___

Read more of AP’s climate coverage at http://www.apnews.com/climate-and-surroundings

___

pursue Seth Borenstein on X at @borenbears

___

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial back from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. discover AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.