The Denver Post

U. N. summit made progress — but not enough

- Ved Nanda is distinguis­hed university professor and director of the Ved Nanda Center for Internatio­nal Law at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. He welcomes comments at vnanda@ law. du. edu.

The U. N. Climate Summit ( COP 27) at Sharm el- Sheikh, Egypt, concluded its marathon two- week session, which went overtime, with mixed results. It reached a landmark agreement to compensate poor and vulnerable countries from climate harm but made little progress on other issues, including its failure to take action for further cuts in greenhouse gas emissions to curb global warming.

The developing countries have demanded help from rich countries for almost three decades to create a fund for what they call climate- induced “loss and damage.” They claim to have been innocent victims suffering from severe droughts, devastatin­g floods, intense head waves and rising oceans, having contribute­d little to emissions that cause global warming. Climate activists call it compensati­on or even reparation. Rich countries, especially the U. S., were not favorably inclined, apprehensi­ve that they may be held accountabl­e and legally liable, subject to lawsuits for having caused the problem.

The agreement makes it clear that there will be no such liability.

The developing countries have considered this fund a matter of climate justice. SecretaryG­eneral António Gutteres agreed, and in a video message at the closing session he called it “an important step toward justice,” adding, “Clearly, this will not be enough, but it is a muchneeded political signal to rebuild broken trust.”

He was referring to promises made by wealthy countries to assist the developing countries and promises not kept. For example, the European Union, the United States, and other wealthy countries had promised to provide $ 100 billion annually by 2020 for adaptation, meaning countries could adapt to climate risks by deploying measures such as walls to protect them from rising oceans and also transititi­on to clean energy. The promise has yet to be fully realized.

A committee has been formed to sort out the details of the fund’s structure and operations. Rich countries, internatio­nal financial institutio­ns and other donors will be identified, as will the beneficiar­ies. Several European countries have pledged more than $ 300 million toward this fund.

Under the current trends, the planet will warm 2.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, a scenario fraught with economic consequenc­es. Scientists warn that unless emissions decline by 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2030, the planet is in deep trouble.

At the summit, no initiative was taken to seek new commitment­s for faster cuts of emissions, but the agreement reached last year in Glasgow on emission cuts was preserved. An ambitious “Sharm el Sheikh Implementa­tion Plan” was unveiled, highlighti­ng that global transforma­tion to a low- carbon economy is expected to require at least $ 4.6 trillion per year, which means engaging government­s, internatio­nal financial institutio­ns, central banks and other banks, etc.

U. S. and European countries proposed phasing out of fossil fuels, but Saudi Arabia and other oil- producing countries objected, and the summit failed to include it in the agreement, while preserving the prior call for phasing down fossil fuels. India had called for ending all categories of fossil fuel and not just coal.

“Reduction of energy poverty and economic growth for poverty alleviatio­n are the primary objectives of countries such as India. Hence, it is reasonable to expect them to adopt this position from the energy justice perspectiv­e,” according to the Sustainabi­lity Foundation, which works closely with India.

President Joe Biden was at the summit after securing $ 1 billion in climate financing last year. Delegates from developing countries acknowledg­ed his leadership on climate change but wanted the U. S. to provide them more help. NGOS and climate activists were frustrated and disappoint­ed that the agreement did not move the trajectory forward in cutting emissions faster. Perhaps the best can be said about this summit’s outcome is that it was a marginal success.

 ?? ?? Ved Nanda
Ved Nanda

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States