Climate damages deal but 1.5C limit in doubt
The arrangement to help vulnerable nations is hailed as historic after chaotic finale to summit
Vulnerable developing countries will receive compensation for the effects of climate change after a deal at the Cop27 climate summit. The agreement was announced in Sharm el-sheikh, Egypt, after fraught overnight negotiations. But the summit failed to reach an agreement to further cut emissions, leaving the aim of limiting global warming to 1.5C in doubt. It also left open questions of who would pay, to which countries, and how much, to next year’s meeting in the UAE.
VULNERABLE developing countries will receive compensation for the impacts of climate change after a historic deal at the Cop27 climate summit.
The agreement was announced early yesterday in Sharm el-sheikh, Egypt, after fraught overnight negotiations. But the summit failed to reach an agreement to further cut emissions, leaving the aim of limiting global warming to 1.5C in doubt.
The agreement will establish a fund for climate compensation for “particularly vulnerable” countries. But it left open questions of exactly who would pay, to which countries, how much, and whether new money is required, to next year’s meeting in the UAE.
The UK and EU say they already provides sufficient funding for vulnerable countries to respond to natural disaster which have been made worse because of climate change.
Health Secretary Steve Barclay yesterday declined to commit to additional UK funding. “We need to look at the detail. Obviously that’s just coming through now,” he told BBC’S Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg.
Alok Sharma, the Cop26 president, welcomed the “historic” decision, which he said would “require contributions from the widest range of sources and parties”, in a hint of the battle to come over whether China and others should contribute to the fund. But he warned that the agreement was “not a moment of unqualified celebration” as it had failed to increase emissions cuts necessary to limit warming.
Wrangling by gas-producing nations led to the deal stressing the importance of “low-emission” energy alongside renewables, seen as leaving open the door for gas use.
“I said in Glasgow that the pulse of 1.5 degrees was weak. Unfortunately, it remains on life support,” Mr Sharma said. “And all of us need to look ourselves in the mirror, and consider if we have fully risen to that challenge over the past two weeks.”
Rishi Sunak, who attended the summit earlier this month, said that “more must be done” to tackle climate change.
“I welcome the progress made at Cop27, but there can be no time for complacency,” said the Prime Minister.
“Keeping the 1.5 degrees commitment alive is vital to the future of our planet. More must be done.”
The inclusion of “loss and damage”was welcomed by developing nations and activists, who have been calling for climate compensation for decades. Molwyn Joseph, the chair of the Alliance of Small Island States, which has been a key player, said: “The international community has restored global faith in this critical process that is dedicated to ensuring no one is left behind. The agreements made at Cop27 are a win for our entire world.”
Negotiators had battled to reach agreement throughout the night as the summit, branded the most chaotic in years, extended more than 36 hours beyond its official close.
The UN’S Climate Change Conference in Egypt was the 27th such gathering since the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Then, the science of global warming was in its infancy, but world leaders were sufficiently alarmed to commit to a massive programme of financial transfers to countries likely to be worst affected. Thirty years on, a deal was struck at Sharm el-sheikh on Sunday to establish a dedicated “loss and damage fund” of the sort that never materialised after Rio. It is a triumph of hope over expectation to think this agreement is any more likely to be fulfilled.
The past fortnight’s jamboree in Egypt has been dominated less by arguments over carbon levels than by who will pay for the damage caused by climate change. Developed countries such as Britain will be expected to make substantial contributions to the fund, based on their past industrial activity, even though the biggest emitters are countries like China and India. They have made no commitment to pay, nor do they propose to reduce emissions any time soon, rendering most of the Cop targets set in Paris a few years ago unachievable.
Since most scientists do not think temperatures can be held down, the ramifications could be considerable and preparations will need to be made. For instance, droughts and famines in sub-saharan Africa could lead to migration on a scale never seen before. Countries unwilling to contribute to mitigation measures need to consider the implications not for today, but 30 years hence.
Although there was agreement on establishing a fund, the details have yet to be resolved. The most controversial decisions have been kicked into next year, when a “transitional committee” is expected to make recommendations for countries to adopt at the Cop28, a year from now.
They would cover “identifying and expanding sources of funding”: in other words, who will pay, and how much, has yet to be settled.
The Cop went no further in seeking to reduce carbon emissions than last year’s in Glasgow, with resistance coming from European countries facing an energy crisis this winter because of the Ukraine war. Countries such as Germany, far from turning away from fossil fuels, are even reopening coalfired power plants to keep the lights on.
As often happens with these meetings, the talks went to the wire, with last-minute negotiations concluding with an outburst of mutual backslapping for what was dubbed a “historic” agreement. The same was said in Rio in 1992.