COP 29: grossly inadequate funding signals a deepening East–West divide     By Jeremy Webb

 

Developing countries at COP 29 presented the Western world with an annual US$1trillion financial transfer bill for the cost of their profligate carbon fuelled global warming inducing industrialisation. That sum was no NGO rule of thumb figure but one produced by an organisation funded by Western governments themselves – the International Energy Agency, the world’s foremost body dealing with energy. Despite these credentials, the West saw fit to radically discount its bill by two thirds to US$300 billion.

The West’s miserliness is of its own making. That the cost is now so massive speaks for decades of inaction – of kicking the CO2 can down the road. We have now arrived ‘down the road’ and that we are obliged to pay for the climate change damage we have and will impose on the third world – in addition to our own massive climate change costs – is incontrovertible. Which is to say we of the wealthy West have been enriching ourselves at the expense of the third world by emitting way above our ‘rightful’ share of CO2 – that is, of the limited volume of emissions which can be emitted before we seriously cook the planet. We are nowhere being confronted in the Western press of this (Webb P and I July 18): of the fact that, on a cumulative basis since industrialisation, OECD countries have accounted for 60-70% of carbon emissions while accommodating a mere 17% of the globe’s population. India with 18% of global population accounts for a mere 3-4% of cumulative emissions. Even China’s cumulative emissions per capita have reached only around 75% of the global average while the US is around 5 to 6 times the average (Australia 4 times). And given that rising consumption is driving still rising emissions we should also be reminded that Australians, followed by the USA, Canada and Japan are globally the most profligate consumers per capita.

That climate inaction has delivered a quantum increase in the West’s bill for climate change mitigation and adaptation in third world countries is alarmingly quantified in a recent study in the prestigious journal Nature (The economic commitment of climate change | Nature). A globally stark climate change future is presented by an estimated global income reduction of 19% by 2050 based on climate change damage already in train – that is, notwithstanding if there were to be immediate and sustained drastic reductions in carbon emissions. The overall cost comes in at around $38 trillion.

Why the costs for third world countries are so high relates to their particular vulnerability to the effects of climate change. The Nature article shows that in the pipeline climate change damage “……is significantly larger in countries with smaller historical cumulative emissions, as well as in regions with lower current income per capita”. This, the authors conclude was demonstrably unjust. “This implies that those countries that will suffer the most from the damages already committed are those that are least responsible for climate change and which also have the least resources to adapt to it”.

Exactly why climate change imposes higher costs on third world countries relates to a number of factors. Many are located in the tropics and therefore suffer most from higher temperatures. They also typically have large agricultural sectors which are highly sensitive to climate change. The costs of mitigation in developing countries are also higher than in the developed world given higher costs of finance.

The bad news for the West in terms of its financial obligations does not unfortunately stop here. Other studies (The price of a changing climate: extreme weather and economic loss and damage in SIDS | ODI: Think change) indicate that even the IEA’s estimate of an annual US$1 trillion bill may be a serious underestimation given already extreme weather is costing at risk island nations US$141 billion each year and which could rise to US$1 trillion annually by 2030.

The obvious dilemma for Australia and other Western countries is that we are still kicking the now monstrously expensive carbon can further down an increasingly high cost road. This, at a time when our own national bill for mitigation and de-carbonisation is rising inexorably due to our inaction and when our badly flawed democracies are not delivering anywhere near the resources needed to impede reaching 1.5C. The prospect of grossly inadequate financial transfers to the third world in unsuitable forms is surely a recipe for a deepening east west cleavage and rising global insecurity. Such a future will be pretty well guaranteed if, as can be expected, Trump rejects any notion of financial responsibility and dries up climate change financial transfers to the third world.

 

https://johnmenadue.com/cop-29-grossly-inadequate-funding-signals-a-deepening-east-west-divide/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

 

 

Garden and Jungle Politics Driving the Finance COP 29    BY Simon Chege Ndiritu

 

A poster from the U.S. think tank Foreign Policy in Focus depicting the Global North as a garden and the Global South as jungles exemplifies the summit’s underlying inequality. Is it a coincidence?

 

 

Speakers at COP 29, including the UN secretary general, did not propose how to stop wealthy countries from emitting Carbon dioxide (CO2) and other Green House Gases (GHGs). Instead, they proposed how wealthy nations should loan developing ones $100 billion for the latter to stop using fossil fuels, and remain as jungles.The developing countries must have energy options that the developed ones had during the latter’s industrialization

COP29 is a Loan Fair

Josep Borell’s trope referring to Europe as a garden and the rest of the world as a jungle may have been disowned by some in the west, but this line of thinking has been adopted in the highest levels of climate debate and policy including by COP (Conference of Parties of The UN Climate Change Conference, UNCCC), 29thsummit. The summit has been dubbed Finance COP, as it leaves wealthy nations to continue using fossil fuels, and urges them to give expensive loans to developing ones in exchange for the latter shelving their developmental needs, to purportedly save the planet from climate change. Surprisingly, wealthy economies that use fossil fuels, and hence emit nearly all GHGs, making tens of trillions in the process, are not required to stop emitting.

Some speakers at the COP think that top emitters, euphemized as ‘wealthy nations’ should only contribute a paltry $100 billion (less than Kenya’s or Ethiopia’s annual GDP) to be loaned out to all poor countries in exchange for the latter stopping using fossil fuel; essentially ending development. Thus, there is apparent double standards, where developed countries are allowed to continue emitting GHGs, but poor ones must pledge to stop emitting even in the future to supposedly save the planet.

Reading from BBC report on the 11th, and France 24 on 12th November, 2024, rich countries will continue using fossil fuels, to power their economies and make trillions annually, despite the UNCCC claiming that this form of energy emits large volumes of CO2 and other GHGs, which causes global warming, climate change, and threaten the earth. Also, both BBC and France 24added that 200 countries were represented at the 2024 COP summit. However, readers should note that only 12 countries produce over 1% of the global CO2 emissions, led by China, the US, and India at 30.9, 13.5, and 7.3% respectively. Therefore, it is safe to argue that countries contributing under 1% are spectators, and not participants in any serious discussion aimed at reducing CO2 and GHGs emissions.

As seen earlier, conveners of COP 29, including Antonio Guterres did not propose practical ways of cutting down CO2 or GHGs emissions, putting into question the notion that the named emissions cause global warming. For the summit to have been meaningful, it should have convened key emitters, China, the US, India, Europe, and Japan as parties that can meaningfully reduce CO2 and GHGs emissions. By inviting only consequential emitters, COP 29 organizers would have avoided forcing politicians from countries making negligible contributions to global CO2 emissions to fly in airliner-sized private jets to Azerbaijan while emitting large volumes to complain about climate change.

Assembling those emitting insignificant amounts suggests that conveners had other motives. One such motivation may have been guilt-tripping poor countries from developing to maintain the prevailing global inequality. Another motive that should be considered is lending credibility to whatever Draconian resolutions the rich, selfish minority will propose in the current or future COP summits.

Reinforcing the view that wealthy countries are not convinced that GHGs emissions cause climate change, the BBC reported that the US president-elect Donald Trump will exit UN climate negotiations and accelerate America’s fossil fuel use. This shows how forcing poor countries to top using carbon-intensive energy is deceitful and malicious. Therefore, $100 billion ‘finance’ to be contributed by wealthy countries that will continue using carbon-intensive energy could be bribes for influencing politicians from developing countries to sabotage their countries’ future. Inviting such leaders to COP 29 may provide closer contact for inducing them to trap their populations in debt.

Debt-Trap Diplomacy

The ‘financing’ term used in the climate summit means that developing countries will not be compensated for forgoing development in shunning fossil fuels. Instead, they will be given small, expensive loans, plus be expected to agree to harm their long-term interests, raising the possibility that their leaders will be bribed or coerced to accept such harmful positions. Noteworthy, African leaders including from Kenya, and Ghana have decried how global financial institutions issue discriminatory and expensive debt to Africans. Thus, the proposed ‘climate financing’ is likely to follow this disastrous path. Also, the meagre amount issued as loans will have strings attached requiring poor countries to restrict their own development, even while issuers may encourage receiving politicians to embezzlement, such that the citizenry will only be left with debt obligation. In past cases, the World Bank and IMF loaned money to African countries in exchange for Draconian requirements such as austerity measures and over taxation to curtail development.

Also, these bodies leave loopholes for corrupt politicians to steal loans issued, burdening citizens to repay debt that had no positive impact on their economies. According to Daily Nation, the World Bank and the IMF lacked mechanisms to ensure that loans given to Kenya were used prudently, such that over half the amounts dispensed were stolen. Similarly, developed countries will dispense ‘climate financing’ and encourage corrupt politicians to embezzle the same and invest in the west, leaving the citizenry burdened by debt obligations. Therefore, the recipient countries will remain underdeveloped, while the wealthy ones get wealthier and emit more GHGs.

COP 29 Open Display of Apartheid Attitude

The current proposals to ‘finance’ developing countries in order for them to avoid fossil fuels, while developed ones generate tens of trillions in annual GDP primarily from using fossil fuels, shows an apartheid attitude. Therefore, negotiations concerning how wealthy countries should increase climate financing or put any conditions on developing ones must be shunned. The developing countries must have energy options that the developed ones had during the latter’s industrialization. Therefore, there must not be two-tier global citizens with the first-class enjoying a fossil-fuel-run economy with advanced products and services, while the second, having to accept a few billions in expensive loans to avoid these fuels. By naming COP 29 as the finance COP and making it about buying poor countries out of development, it seems that UNCCC and its friends, the top emitters, are no longer afraid of openly showcasing their apartheid perspectives.

 

Simon Chege Ndiritu, is a political observer and research analyst from Africa.

 

https://journal-neo.su/2024/11/25/garden-and-jungle-politics-driving-the-finance-cop-29/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.