The climate conference at Baku adopted a text on the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) or climate finance of US $300 billion by 2035 but it falls far short of the money needed to fight climate crisis. The world had committed $100 billion at the Copenhagen climate conference in 2010, to be collected by 2020, but by 2024, the money is still not on the table for developing countries to tackle the impact of climate change.
In a period of
The climate conference at Baku adopted a text on the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) or climate finance of US $300 billion by 2035 but it falls far short of the money needed to fight climate crisis. The world had committed $100 billion at the Copenhagen climate conference in 2010, to be collected by 2020, but by 2024, the money is still not on the table for developing countries to tackle the impact of climate change.
In a period of 25 years, just a three-fold increase in commitment for climate funding from all sources including public, private and multi-lateral agreements, is woefully short.
At Copenhagen, the developing countries had sought $100 billion from public sources in rich countries; by 2022, not even $50 billion had been provided through public funding, which could directly alleviate climate vulnerability. So, no one really expects more than $100 to $150 billion to be collected from public sources by 2035 even if rich countries fulfil the commitment made in Baku.
Public funding is important for climate finance as the money directly reaches vulnerable people through different government schemes and the impact can be monitored more efficiently. Not a single private fund provides adequate money for climate adaptation and disaster mitigation. In private funding, which would include corporate social responsibility (CSR), benefit transfer to the most vulnerable is negligible. Most of private funding is channelled towards technology innovation such as improving the efficiency of solar panels and electric vehicles, which may not decrease the vulnerability of people living in climate disaster-prone areas.
At Baku, India stood with the Global South and vehemently opposed the new text of NCQG, which was suddenly gavelled by the Azerbaijan Presidency, to oppose a minimalistic approach adopted by rich countries whose economies are slowing. There is also no surety whether the United States would be willing to pay its share of funds. “We are extremely disappointed. Trust is the basis for all action and this incident is indicative of a lack of trust. Gavelling and trying to ignore parties from speaking does not behove the UNFCCC’s system and we would want you to hear us and also hear our objections to this adoption,” said Chandni Raina, advisor at India’s finance ministry and negotiator for India.
Apart from the amount being too low, India fears that the burden of climate finance may have to be shared by the developing countries, especially India and China in future as they would be among the top three economies of the world. Therefore, it tried to project itself as voice of the global south in a bid to stall seeking climate finance from emerging economies. However, the Baku agreement keeps the window open for rich countries to push India and China to contribute to global climate finance.
The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s commitment to make India a developed country by 2047 and claims of eliminating poverty has its climate negotiation drawbacks. At any given climate talk conference, it is becoming increasingly difficult for India to shelter behind its image as a poor country with low per capita emissions to not agree to cut emission cuts and give money for global climate fund.
Voices are emerging even from relatively lesser developed countries for New Delhi and Beijing to share the global effort to fight climate change. India agreeing to net zero by 2070 is an example of India bucking under the global pressure. Indian negotiators admit in private that the day is not far when India will have to share the global climate burden in finance and emission cuts. “We cannot have a double standard in public discourse. On one hand we say we are fourth largest economy and on other we are not ready for sharing the climate burden,” a former climate envoy said recently.
The pressure provides an opportunity for India to take on a lead for disaster and climate mitigation in South Asia. India can provide a global climate mitigation model under the Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure (CDRI).
Within the country, India has been able to reduce casualties from cyclones, floods and extreme climate events in recent years through quick deployed of National Disaster Relief Force (NDRF) and other agencies, even though it has to still work on better prediction of extreme weather events.
Some of these models can be replicated in other South Asian countries and it can be India’s climate fighting model for the money. A lesser climate vulnerable South Asia could economically help India. The money contributed for disaster mitigation in South Asia could be India’s funding commitment to fight global climate crisis and would project India as a global leader in line with leading economies such as China, US and Europe, the major contributors for the ongoing climate crisis.
One Subscription.
Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines
to 100 year archives.
Archives
HT App & Website