It can be seen in the eyes of the protester who stood there with “blood on his hands” as his comment. It can be heard from all the island states that felt the rich world spat in their face. They said it out loud. It was palpable when several poor countries regularly walked out of the negotiations and said that “no agreement is better than a bad agreement”. The climate summit vibrated while Saturday turned into evening and night. One has been on the brink of failure and political scandal. Power, or rather powerlessness, has been palpable. Overtime, the rich countries put an extra $50 billion on the table. The text of the agreement from Baku states that the rich countries must pay at least 300 billion dollars annually to poor countries until 2035. The demand was 500 billion dollars. Some dreamed of $1.3 trillion. Still, things got expensive in Baku. Crisis of trust and poor processes Trust seems to be at a minimum between rich and poor countries after this year’s climate summit. Worse when they left than when you arrived. The “price” to pay for the feeling of increased distance, less understanding, the thought of inferiority is not measured in dollars. It is measured in sand in the fragile machinery that is supranational climate cooperation between countries that have very different degrees of development, bank accounts, emissions, opportunities and experience with climate change already. This is why this year’s climate summit is among the most expensive. Afterwards, the main criticism was not about a lack of dollars, but a lack of responsibility. The agreement in Baku is expensive because politics is at its most concrete and brutal when it comes to funding and allocations. Then no world leader can play on charm, oratory, status or country’s history, ambitions or reputation. Numbers count, commit and are measurable. Civil society has been clearly present throughout the climate summit. Photo: AP Little room for maneuver The costly agreement from Baku must be read in three ways. For what it is, what it is not and what the real room for action actually is. This is what the countries agree on: Developed countries (such as the EU, USA, Norway) must contribute at least NOK 300 billion. dollars annually by 2035. The global goal is for the world to collectively work towards 1,300 billion. dollars annually by 2035. Developing countries are encouraged to contribute to climate finance (the category includes countries such as India, China). Contributions from emerging developing countries such as India and China remain “voluntary”. The glaring shortcomings are thus: Rich countries could, and many believe should, pay significantly more. The overall goals are not binding. In reality, the emerging economies have no obligations. Countries with large emissions and many inhabitants have in reality no obligations or guarantees to comply with, only voluntary requests. It has not been specified how much the countries will give publicly, how much the private sector will contribute or what will be given as direct support and what will be given as loans. Sending poor countries from a climate problem to a debt problem is not necessarily a long-term solution. China and India fall between two important seats. They are now not defined as rich countries that must both pay to poor countries and cut emissions themselves. At the same time, they are both economic and emission-wise major powers that should have been made at least as big a demand as the USA and Europe. The definitions of rich and poor countries from 1992 are of course outdated, but for some a losing project to change. This also affects trust in the entire international climate cooperation and what is fair. The climate issue is experiencing a significant global backlash. Only compared to a few years ago, climate policy has fallen in importance for politicians and not least their voters in many countries in the rich world. The ambition for rich countries’ climate bill has now tripled from what it was before Baku. Yes, it is an ambition, not an obligation. Sure, the amount could be higher. The moral responsibility IS certainly higher. Nevertheless: Far higher ambitions could be seen as utopias. Goals that do not apply. They would look good on paper, but in practice be worthless. Should the US withdraw from the joint venture next year, all other rich countries (such as Norway) know that the bill will have to be shared among fewer people. Norway’s climate minister Tore O. Sandvik on his way into the decisive negotiation meeting at the weekend. Photo: Ksenia Novikova Criticism of emerging, polluting states Injecting lots of money into poor countries where corruption can take place is not unproblematic either. All the top politicians who were in Baku know that the budget negotiations at home will not have climate grants as the main issue. The climate issue is served by climate-friendly politicians being re-elected. There must be realism in objectives, also in the climate issue, to ensure legitimacy. Therefore, the room for maneuver has been considerably less than the climate lobby’s demands. Even if one were to think that it is also less than the climate problem actually requires. In any case, one does not assume that the process in Azerbaijan has been bad. Rich countries are accused of pulling up the ladder after themselves. Poor countries are accused of having unrealistic expectations. Emerging, polluted economies such as Saudi Arabia, China, India and Pakistan are accused of short-circuiting everything that clogs the system. International climate cooperation has had a bad stay in Baku. That is why the agreement has had its price which cannot be measured in money. Although, really, it might be more accurate to call it a coincidence. And it doesn’t make it any less expensive. Published 24.11.2024, at 15.23 Updated 24.11.2024, at 15.33
ttn-69
Expensive agreement despite little spending – Statement
