Analysis / rumor / news by Mathew Carr
Nov. 17, 2022 — Two people familiar with the situation said two weeks of climate talks in Egypt will likely end with little gain, because the rich people of the world, who have caused the global-heating crisis, are still refusing to finance the loss and damage caused; nor will they help pay enough for the greener growth of poorer nations that didn’t cause the problem.
In Sharm el Sheikh, as the UN negotiations wind up, I’m hearing conflicting reports about whether the talks might extend beyond Friday, the allocated last day.
Emerging nations will walk at the end of Nov. 18 unless loss-and-damage money is funded and a new system to help deal with the immediate damage of climatic events is set up, said one person close to the G77 and China group, which covers 134 of the world’s 200 or so countries. “I know what I’m talking about.”
Another person familiar said Germany and some other nations had extended their accommodation in the Egyptian resort town until Monday, indicating the talks might extend, because so much is at stake.
‘Trustworthy?’
Frans Timmermans, the EU climate chief, earlier Thursday had said China had indicated it was in favor of deploying funds under the Santiago Network for Loss and Damage, an idea with no legs so far. There was no new text as of 8pm Thursday local time on how a new fund might dish out capital immediately after a massive storm or even during a big drought.
Timmermans pretty much said that China should not consider itself “a developing nation” any longer and contribute money to the fund. Using the network framework, rather than setting up some completely new fund, would probably happen more quickly.
“I hope that we have demonstrated that we are trustworthy and serious about (helping to pay for loss and damage)”: Timmermans
But a delegate from the Caribbean said it looked as though talks would achieve little and would need to be completed next year.
On the last Thursday night of any two-week negotiation, one thing is clear; what people say might be truth or it might be negotiation tactic — and it’s nigh impossible to tell which.
What would work, but does not appear to be the table, would be a four-pronged approach like this, the Caribbean delegate said:
- Detail an agreed system to deploy emergency capital to countries impacted by climate events, under the Santiago Network
- Agree a plan to boost the Green Climate Fund, including longer-term financial help for adaptation and for emissions cutting in emerging and least-developed countries; the U.S. has still only put in about $1 billion of its promised $3 billion to that particular fund; one person said the U.S. had promised $10 billion; I did see a report saying President Barack Obama had said the fund would get $10 billion, but that was from various sources. Indeed, it has now deployed more than $11 billion (see summary below)
- Set up a better system of multilateral development banks to spur much more private-sector investment in developing countries
- Complete a more credible deployment of climate finance via carbon markets, both those created under Article 6 of the Paris climate deal and the voluntary ones that are right now in some disarray
Late Thursday night, delegates were expecting a briefing about what the G20 had achieved earlier this week, and how it might fit in with any UNFCCC deal.
“I hope that we have demonstrated that we are trustworthy and serious about (helping to pay for loss and damage)”: Timmermans
Green Climate Fund so Far
Source: GCF website
(Smoothed typos)