Large rifts remain as United Nations climate talks tick down to a Friday deadline. A lot of the divide comes down to money: which nations have it and which do not. So it’s time for the diplomatic cavalry to ride in.
The two-week climate conference in Glasgow first saw heads of government talking about how curbing global warming is a fight for survival. The leaders focused on big pictures, not the intricate wording crucial to negotiations.
Then, for about a week, the technocratic negotiations focused on those key details, getting some things done but not resolving the really sticky situations.
Now, it’s time for the “high level” negotiations, when government ministers or other senior diplomats swoop in to make the political decisions that are supposed to break the technical logjams.
The United Nations has three goals out of Glasgow, which so far are all out of reach: cutting carbon dioxide emissions in half by 2030; rich nations giving poor countries $100 billion a year for combating climate change; ensuring that half of that money goes to adapting to climate change’s increasing harms.
To forge compromise, they have a big gap to bridge. Or more accurately, multiple gaps: there’s a trust gap and a wealth gap. A north-south gap. It’s about money, history, and the future.
On one side of the gap are nations that developed and became rich from the Industrial Revolution fueled by coal, oil, and gas that started in the U.K.
On the other side are the nations that haven’t developed yet and haven’t gotten rich and are now being told those fuels are too dangerous for the planet.
The key financial issue is the $100 billion a year pledge first made in 2009. The developed nations still haven’t reached the $100 billion a year mark. This year the rich nations increased their aid to $80 billion a year, still short of what’s promised.
As the head of the conference briefed countries Monday on the progress – and the lack of it, in some ways – in the talks, developing country after developing country responded by noting how unfulfilled rich nations’ financial pledges were.
It’s not as if that $100 billion alone would make a big difference because trillions of dollars worldwide in payments, not pledges, would be needed to combat climate change, not $100 billion, Huq said. Providing the money is important to bridge the gap in trust between rich nations and poor nations, he argued.
Left out of this report is that all these billions are coming from you, the taxpayer. Funny how the AP never mentions that. –CCD Ed.
Read rest at PBS
