Updated November 7, 2024
Author Erika LennonSenior advocate of the Climate and Energy program at the Center for International Environmental Law, is Rossella Recupero, Communications Campaign Specialist at the Center for International Environmental Law.
The stakes have also risen as the world heads into the sport 29th Conference of the Parties on Climate Change (COP29) November 11-22 in Baku, what happens in a year of extreme heat, unprecedented weather around the world, foreign climate policies, lack of climate finance, and just a few days after the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States.
This year’s theme, climate finance, emphasizes the need to finance the scale and ambition to tackle the climate crisis and support a strong and sustainable energy transition in the Global South. However, if governments fail to address the causes of the crisis – oil production and consumption – it will continue, even economic stimulus measures will fail.
No climate finance would be complete without getting fuel out, fast, and fair. Despite decades of talks and no mention of fossil fuels, governments are a long way from meeting their commitments to keep global warming below 1.5°C and avoid serious damage to human rights.
When world leaders meet in Baku, they are facing an important moment: COP29 is expected to reach an agreement on carbon markets – a dangerous compromise that allows countries to sell “credits” for greenhouse gases instead of reducing emissions to help meet climate goals – and show. how to promote their climate plans (NDCs) from the beginning of the year 2025 (note: immediate action, complete, and the end of the period of fossil fuels, without restrictions or limits, is necessary).
Contribution to Climate Finance
Dubbed the “Finance COP,” COP29 will focus on establishing a new climate finance goal, which will be the first time in 15 years that countries will review the amount and type of funding that developing countries receive to pay for climate change, starting with the $100 billion annual target. was established in 2009. These are the goals that the developed and richest countries in the world have been unable to achieve, since the goal of $100 billion by 2020 was. he arrived two years too lateundermining trust with developing countries and those most vulnerable to climate change and hindering global climate progress.
After years of unfulfilled and, more recently, technical discussions about the amount and quality of financing, countries have committed to a new sustainable goal (NCQG) for climate finance – an opportunity to commit to a climate economy that is consistent with economic growth. today’s challenges. NCQG is not designed to solve all economic problems, but it is an important part of the theory.
The financial goal is not symbolic or optional: establishing and providing it is a legal obligation
The purpose of money is not merely symbolic. Commitment and funding are essential and critical to helping countries at risk of climate change pursue clean energy and low-carbon alternatives, strengthen climate resilience, and meet or strengthen their climate commitments. Countries in vulnerable regions need reliable tools to make sustainable transitions, use renewable energy, and prepare for climate change.
The size, shape, and source of the money
In Baku, negotiators and political leaders face key decisions, including whether to top NCQG’s interest rate – billions or billions – and whether Different goals will be set for reduction, change, and loss and damage. Other key points include the countries that will be included as donors under this objective, whether other financial instruments (such as grants or concessional loans) will be favoured, and how they will show it publicly.
Weather costs should include costs for abatement, replacement, and damage and destruction
In addition to mitigation and adaptation costs, rich countries have a responsibility to provide climate aid to developing countries to prevent damage and destruction instead of continuing their years of delay and blocking to solve the problems they caused.
Gone are the days of making empty promises and failing to deliver. We need real money, and we need it now.
Carbon Markets Are Not Climate Finance
With increasing interest in climate mitigation funding, change and loss and damage, a growing number of carbon market advocates are developing carbon trading as climate finance. But buying carbon cards to get a free license to continue polluting, especially through the production and use of fossil fuels, cannot be considered true climate finance. Emissions reduction measures that allow polluters to buy emissions reductions from other countries instead of reducing their own emissions do not increase climate change or climate change – which is a well-known part of the economy. It should not be used as an escape route or as an excuse for developed countries to avoid their legal obligations to contribute to mitigation, adaptation, loss and damage, especially in the Global South.
The rich countries that bear the greatest responsibility for climate change are overdue for their predictable, new, and additional climate-related payments, and must agree to put real money on the table – not hide behind dangerous policies like carbon markets. and reductions that can be made from CO manipulation technologies2 “removal” is geoengineering. These carbon markets help slow climate change and bring risks to people and the environment. The countries of the South South and the regions on the frontline of the climate crisis need real climate finance and should not be forced to accept carbon markets and be forced to create solutions to the problem so that the polluters of the Global North can continue business as usual because the countries of the Global North continue to fail. follow their responsibility. Simply offering a financial solution that ultimately discourages ambition and global climate action and possibly increases the cost of mitigation measures that countries in the Global South must take now and in the future to meet their climate goals is not compatible with climate justice.
One of the biggest challenges at COP29
Article 6 of the Paris Agreement allows countries to sell carbon credits to meet their climate goals. For example, a country with dense forests can sell credits calculated based on deforestation or CO.2 getting involved with forests to make money for protecting forests (carbon offsets). However, the country cannot account for emissions reductions or exclusions from their climate mitigation goals; instead, countries buying the credit count emissions reductions or exclusions from their climate goals. It’s actually wrong – the creditor countries of the Global South are selling very cheap climate change. The rules for these carbon markets have been in the climate negotiations for many years, and although the initial rubric was established at COP26, the effective use of carbon markets has lagged behind many other rules implementing the Paris Agreement. And they have to be changed before the sales start.
Many carbon market mechanisms create opportunities for polluters while posing serious threats to human rights, Indigenous rights, and the environment. It also serves as a dangerous distraction from the reality of the weather that is needed. The main mistakes make it very difficult that, if the markets are used, the appropriate rules for purchasing carbon credits are agreed before any work begins. It is very important to reduce the environmental damage of the international carbon markets and reduce the risk as they do reducing global carbon emissions or it affects the rights and lives of people around the world.
Since they did not reach a full agreement on the provisions of Article 6 at COP28, the Parties have tried to find common ground. In particular, the Supervisory Board of the recently named Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism (PACM), which also covers air lending between countries and various other organizations, has come to an opinion on the wrong way to complain about the Sustainable Development Instrument. The Governing Body has also tried to reach an agreement on two standards (requirements for transportation and removal activities) that provide technical information on providing a carbon profile and which were not agreed by the Parties in their previous statements at COP27 and COP28. time, the Governing Body has taken a different approach. Instead of making recommendations to the COP as in previous years, the Governing Body states that these principles are valid and should be recognized by the Parties in Baku. Attempting to prevent oversight would set a dangerous precedent and undermine PACM’s integrity from the start.
Instead of focusing on this bogus solution of running out of oil and money, Parties need to step up and act on climate change and put real money on the table to support the will to tackle climate change.
CIEL at COP29: Seeing an Ambitious Opportunity
The impact of the unlimited economic power in Baku will help ensure that all countries have the resources they need to achieve a climate change, sustainable future that is compatible with human rights and the needs and interests of the poorest countries. extremely vulnerable situations.
At a time when countries are reviewing their climate commitments, COP29 also provides an opportunity for major emitting countries to show strong leadership, prioritize climate plans and commit to achieving them.
CIEL experts will be at the Climate Conference from November 11 to 22. They have been participating in discussions and assessing the gap between what countries have promised and what is needed to tackle climate change.
A Finance COP will be meaningless if leaders fail to act clearly, to provide real money and end all oil, quickly, fairly, and permanently.