Thread: Cop29

China and India should not be called developing countries, several Cop29 delegates say

China and India should no longer be treated as developing countries in the same way as some of the poorest African nations are, according to a growing number of delegates from poorer country at the Cop29 UN climate talks.

China should take on some additional responsibility for providing financial help to the poorest and most vulnerable, several delegates told the Guardian. India should not be eligible for receiving financial help as it has no trouble attracting investment, some said.

Balarabe Abbas Lawal, Nigeria’s environment minister, said: “China and India cannot be classified in the same category as Nigeria and other African countries. I think they are developing but they are in a faster phase than states like Nigeria.

“They should also commit in trying to support us. They should also come and make some contribution [to climate finance for poorer countries].”

China and India are regarded as developing countries at the Cop29 climate talks, using classifications that date back to 1992 when the UN framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC) was signed. That means they have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries, and technically are eligible to receive climate aid, though China chooses not to do so.

“Those that actually deserve this support are African countries, poor Asian countries and small island states that are facing devastating climate change issues,” Lawal said.

His views were echoed by two other representatives from developing countries at the talks. An African negotiator said: “China, India, South Africa, Egypt: those countries should not be on the list of developing countries. In the framework, they have conditions to access funds, much more than us. They should be contributing.”

Susana Muhamad, the environment minister of Colombia, said: “The developed and developing country categories are obsolete. These categories should be changed. The problem is that the Paris agreement and the UNFCCC are negotiated on these categories.”

Nearly 200 governments are gathered in Azerbaijan for the second week of fortnight-long climate talks that are focused on how to give poor countries access to the $1tn a year they need to cut greenhouse gas emissions and cope with the impacts of extreme weather.

Progress has been slow as developed nations have been reluctant to put forward the cash needed, and rows have erupted over the global commitment to “transition away from fossil fuels”.

China is the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitter and second biggest economy but is classed alongside some of the poorest countries in the world at the UN talks, and carries no obligation to provide financial help to the developing world.

India is now the world’s fifth largest economy by some measures but is still entitled to receive climate finance.

China and India have long been seen as leaders of the developing world at the annual climate summits, called conferences of the parties (Cops) under the UNFCCC, the parent treaty to the 2015 Paris agreement.

This year, however, questions over which countries are still developing have been thrown into sharp focus by the goal of this year’s talks, which is to forge a “new collective quantified goal” on climate finance.

Li Shuo, the director of the China Climate Hub at the Asia Society Policy Institute, a thinktank, said that for any countries to try to push China into contributing to climate finance on the same basis as developed countries would be counterproductive. “That would risk harming trust, and reinforcing divisions,” he said. “What we need is unity, and unity is starting to emerge at these talks.”

Christ, here we go again...

Originally Posted by cyrille

Christ, here we go again...

At least it's contained to one or two threads.

Cutting emissions of potent but short-lived greenhouse gas methane is 'emergency brake'

Slashing emissions of the potent but short-lived greenhouse gas methane is “our emergency brake”, the UN said today, as the Cop29 presidency announced a new drive to cut methane emissions from waste dumps.

Rotting food in landfills causes about 20% of human-related emissions of methane and the Guardian revealed in February that there have been more than 1000 huge leaks of the gas from landfills since 2019. Cutting methane from waste, fossil fuel sites and farming will rapidly stop global temperature rise and is essential to taming the climate crisis.

“Today, we are launching the Cop29 Reducing Methane from Organic Waste Declaration,” said Cop29 lead negotiator Yalchin Rafiyev. “This commits countries to creating targets on food waste within future [national climate pledges].”

“As of this morning, more than 30 countries representing almost 50% of the global methane emissions from organic waste have endorsed the declaration,” he said. “This includes eight of the world’s 10 largest emitters of methane from organic waste.” The endorsing countries include the US, UK, Nigeria, Brazil, Japan, Russia and Mexico.

“Reducing methane emissions this decade is our emergency brake in the climate emergency,” said Martina Otto, at the UN Environment Programme, which hosts the Global Methane Pledge through which almost 160 nations have pledged to cut methane emissions by 30% by 2030.

She said there were several good reasons to cut food waste emissions, including trapping the gas to use it as an energy source and reusing the food waste as a protein source. “We also want to make sure we’re not losing food that could feed people and is instead feeding climate change,” she said. She called the new declaration “absolutely critical”.

On the leaders’ statement from the G20 summit, which my colleague Fiona Harvey covered earlier, Rafiyev said: “We appreciate the signal that they have sent - we now need to translate political will into practical work.” He also said the Cop29 presidency was working towards producing “a first iteration of a full draft tax” on the all-important climate finance goal by Wednesday evening.

The Guardian

‘We must, must try’ – Maldives’ climate minister

The Maldives, a group of islands in the Indian Ocean, is liable for just 0.003% of global emissions. But it is one of the first countries to endure the existential consequences of the climate crisis.

At Cop29, I caught up with Thoriq Ibrahim, the country’s minister of climate change, environment and energy, who is leading negotiations for the small island nation.

“We’re not causing climate change, it’s the developing countries that did that,” he said. “They did that to us, and we are not at all prepared.”

Cop29’s goal of adopting a new and expanded goal for climate finance to help vulnerable nations slash emissions and cope with climate disasters, is of particular importance to the Maldives. The last climate finance goal, adopted in 2009, did not allocate specific funding to small island developing states. Ibrahim says that must change.

“We must be allocated at least $39bn USD per year,” he said.

To ensure that money is accessible, he is also calling for the adoption of a multidimensional vulnerability index – a new way to measure countries’ climate need that considers not only their wealth, but also their vulnerability.

Last year, a “loss and damage fund” was created at Cop28 to help nations cope with irreversible climate damages. So far, wealthy countries’ contributions to that fund constitute a tiny fraction of what is needed.

It’s important for the Maldives to be able to access those monies quickly, said Ibrahim. His country could be completely swallowed by the rising seas by 2100 or sooner, research shows.

“Once our islands are destroyed, what do we have,” he asked. “We are in a special circumstance because of this major threat.”

At Cop29, Ibrahim is also demanding countries submit national climate action plans that are aligned with keeping global temperature rise less than 1.5C degrees higher than preindustrial temperatures. It’s a goal that many experts say has already been missed – or at best is on life support.

“Maybe we will go past that goal, overshoot it, and then bring the temperatures back down,” he said. “But the scientists say it’s possible to limit the warming, and so we must, must try.”

The Guardian

Paris to Baku good COP bad COP

Here are some useful numbers to bear in mind when it comes to the negotiations.

$5tn a year – that’s the amount that NGOs say would represent at least a downpayment on the amount that developed countries owe to the developing world for their historic greenhouse gas emissions. (Although don’t forget that the emissions of some large emerging economies are now so vast that they rival developed countries – China’s historic emissions are now greater than those of the EU.) This sum is achievable, through taxes on fossil fuels and high-carbon activities, NGOs say.

$3tn – the amount, roughly, likely to be spent on energy this year globally, according to the International Energy Agency. Of which two-thirds will be on clean energy, the remainder stubbornly still flowing to fossil fuels.

$2.4tn a year – the amount developing countries (excluding China) need to help them cut greenhouse gas emissions, in line with the 1.5C goal of the Paris agreement, and adapt to the impacts of extreme weather, according to the International High Level Expert Group on climate finance, made up of senior global economists, led by Lord Stern, Vera Songwe and Amar Bhattacharya.

$1tn a year by 2030, $1.3tn a year by 2035 – the slice of the above $2.4tn that should be met by external finance. The remainder can come and is already coming from developing countries’ own domestic budgets.

$1tn to $1.4tn a year – the amount developing countries are demanding in climate finance from the developed world at Cop29.

$900bn a year – the amount that the Least Developed Countries and some other poor countries want to come in the form of public finance, preferably all or most of it in the form of grants rather than loans.

$300bn – the amount developed countries are likely to offer in public finance to the developing world.

$100bn – the amount of climate finance from public sources flowing from the developed to the developing world today.

There is a big gap between $300bn and $1tn. But, according to the IHLEG, this gap can be filled in various ways. They suggest that $500bn in climate finance should come from the private sector, which is willing to invest in renewable energy, electric vehicles and other low-carbon technologies.

According to IHLEG, about $80bn to $100bn a year should come from bilateral finance – that is, money going directly from developed to developing countries. That would be roughly double the current amount. An additional $250bn should come from development banks, including the World Bank. That’s a stretch compared with the $120bn that the World Bank has just agreed to provide by 2030, which itself was a doubling on the previous amount (long derided as too small by developing countries).

The remainder could come from a mixture of South-South funding; innovative forms of finance, also known as global solidarity levies – that is, levies such as a wealth tax, a charge on fossil fuels, a frequent flyer levy and similar measures; arcane forms of finance such as the International Monetary Fund’s special drawing rights; carbon trading; and philanthropy.

The Guardian

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Cutting emissions of potent but short-lived greenhouse gas methane is 'emergency brake'

Will you be giving up the cattle ranch then?

You have the biggest carbon and methane footprint of anyone on the forum, hypocrite.

Cows and Climate Change | UC Davis.

^stop eating beef.

I don't eat it (for the most part)

Always dodging, aint you landreth.

’Hypocrite’ is bang on, ‘for the most part’.

Originally Posted by S Landreth

^stop eating beef.

I don't eat it (for the most part)

I don't eat it that much either. But then again, I'm not the one calling everyone a climate denier while profiting off of one of the biggest methane producers in the agricultural world, am I. Hypocrite.

Originally Posted by pickel

I'm not the one calling everyone a climate denier

Not everyone. But I will call out a denier when I see one

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Not everyone. But I will call out a denier when I see one

And I'll call out a hypocrite when I see one.

Spamdreath is a laugh. Leave him be. Thinks he’s saving the planet with his cut and pastes on speed.

an idiot climate denier above who has failed in life

"Transformational NDCs are not Optional – They are Opportunities no Country Can Miss": Simon Stiell

Friends,

Earlier this year I said the next round of NDCs are the most important policy documents of this century. So why is that?

First, because they will be the final barricade for every nation in its fight-to-the-death against climate impacts getting more brutal each year.

And let's be clear: no nation is winning this fight. Every economy is being besieged by climate disasters, ripping up to 5 percent off GDP in some countries. And it’s people and businesses that are paying the heaviest price.

Yesterday was agriculture day, and we heard again that food production and supply chains are getting slammed by climate impacts, fueling inflation and hunger, in every country.

So I’ll be honest – it’s grim. Indeed, I’m often asked what gives me confidence that we can get this job done.

The answer is lots of things.

Quiet acts of solidarity, from people who get knocked down, but who refuse to stay down.

But there are also big things – the macro trends that aren't up for debate.

And there's none bigger than the global clean energy boom – set to hit two trillion dollars this year alone. And it's just getting started.

Money talks, and as we enter the second quarter of this century, it's saying loud and clear: there's no stopping the clean energy juggernaut, and the vast benefits it brings: stronger growth, more jobs, less pollution and inflation, cheaper and cleaner energy. The list of benefits goes on.

That's why we've seen two G20 countries – the UK and Brazil – signal clearly at the COP they plan to ramp up climate action in their NDCs 3.0 - because it's 100% in their economic interests to do so.

But – and it's a big but – right now these vast benefits are only achievable for some. Our job is to make them achievable for all.

To ensure every country can deliver a bold new national climate plan, covering all greenhouse gases and all sectors, aligned with the science of keeping 1.5 degrees within reach.

The NDC Partnership plays a crucial role here. I commend Pablo [Vieira, Global Director of the NDC Partnership Support Unit] and his team for their work. Your network has the expertise, the capacity to support Parties, addressing their unique needs. Coordinating support.

At the secretariat, we are gearing up to play our part in the crucial year ahead, working with the UN system – you heard me announce in my opening speech the Climate Plan Campaign which will help mobilise countries to deliver.

So I urge you all today – reaffirm and, where possible, strengthen your commitments.

Show the world that transformational NDCs are not optional – they are opportunities no country can miss.

I thank you, and I have to run!

https://unfccc.int/news/transformati...s-simon-stiell

The Cop29 presidency has issued a statement defending the draft text that came out overnight and which has received widespread criticism this morning for not containing a concrete figure for climate finance.

The statement says: “The next iteration - to be released tonight - will be shorter and will contain numbers based on our view of possible landing zones for consensus.”

Here it is in full:

The COP29 Presidency has published a first set of substantially streamlined texts on critical mandates, including the NCQG. These documents come as a package with finance at the centre, they recall and take forward the outcomes of the first Global Stocktake, and they contain options to address the key concerns of all groups.

They are not final. The COP29 Presidency’s door is always open, and we welcome any bridging proposals that the Parties wish to present. We are spending the day engaging with everyone.

On the NCQG, we did not believe that presenting a wide range of numbers for the financial goal would be useful in this text. The next iteration - to be released tonight - will be shorter and will contain numbers based on our view of possible landing zones for consensus.

We are now in the endgame and we believe that a breakthrough in Baku is in sight. Everyone must engage with the texts and with each other so that they are ready to make the ambitious choices we all need.

The Guardian

Poor nations may have to downgrade climate cash demands, ex-UN envoy says

Poor countries may have to compromise on demands for cash to tackle global heating, a former UN climate envoy has said, as UN talks entered their final hours in deadlock.

In comments that are likely to disappoint poorer countries at the Cop29 summit, Mary Robinson, the former president of Ireland and twice a UN climate envoy, said rich country budgets were stretched amid inflation, Covid and conflicts including Russia’s war in Ukraine.

“It’s finance, and it’s absolutely vital, and it’s the responsibility of the developed world,” she told the Guardian in an interview. “But you can’t squeeze what isn’t squeezable.”

Rich countries have yet to make any formal offer of finance to the poor world as of Thursday night, even as two weeks of talks stretched into their final official day on Friday. The summit is focused on finding $1tn (£790bn) a year for poor nations to shift to a low-CO2 economy and cope with the impacts of extreme weather.

But the rich world is expected to offer only about $300bn a year at most in public finance, far less than many developing countries hoped for. The developed world is likely to argue that the remainder of the $1tn can be made up from other sources, including private sector investment, carbon trading and potential new sources such as taxes on fossil fuels.

Robinson said $300bn should be “a minimum” and developed countries must also take steps to ensure that poor countries can access private sector finance and loans much more cheaply than at present, by “de-risking” finance for them. That could include giving guarantees for loans, which costs developed countries nothing but can make a big difference to gaining access to investment for the poor.

Many poor countries are asking for a much higher proportion of the $1tn to come from rich country’s budgets, rather than from the private sector or new taxes. The least developed countries bloc, for instance, said they wanted $900bn of the total to come from public finance.

Robinson said those ideas were “fine in principle, but not in the reality of government budgets”.

She conceded that this view would be controversial. “I think probably developing countries would say that’s too low,” said Robinson. “But in my view, with the other parts – the solidarity levies [such as fossil fuel taxes], the World Bank, and the private sector, you can get up to $1tn. That’s the point.

“That’s the world we live in. Budgets are stretched. The UK is playing a really good role, but they don’t have the money. We know it, you know, we all know. There’s no point trying to squeeze what is not squeezable.”

A core of finance from public sources of about $300bn, surrounded by other sources such as new taxes, carbon trading and private sector investment, is in line with an influential academic paper published by Nicholas Stern and other leading economists last week. TheIndependent High-Level Expert Group on Climate Finance found that about $500bn a year should come from private sector investment as part of $1tn for developing countries by 2030 and $1.3tn by 2035.

Developing countries were reluctant to comment as the negotiations are entering a crucial phase. Nevertheless, several civil society groups told the Guardian that developing countries should stick to their demands for more of the money to come from public sources.

Thato Gabaitse, a climate justice advocate for the Botswana chapter of the campaign group We, the World, said: “African countries have been clear on their $1.3tn ask. Out of that, $600bn would be provision and the rest mobilisation. Global north countries are showing a willingness to tip the scales, putting even more lives at risk in the global south and eroding the goodwill of global south countries. Keeping the process alive also means delivering finance without undermining the fundamentals of the Paris agreement. There is fatigue from the global south with the lack of ambition from rich countries. It’s time for the developed countries to put a future on the table and negotiate in good faith.”

Charlene Watson, a research associate at the ODI group, said developed countries should offer at least $500bn. “While less than what developing countries are asking for, a solid commitment of $500bn in highly concessional public finance – not in grant-equivalent terms, as the draft text suggests – could be the ‘landing zone’ we need to finalise the negotiations,” she said. “$500bn is robust enough – and enough of a statement – to mobilise the remainder up to that important $1tn mark.”

Robinson also said that China and other major economies still classed as developing must also pay towards climate finance. “It’s also the responsibility of the rich so-called developing countries [such as] China to take their responsibility properly. I know China does support developing countries, mainly with loans, but it needs to become more part of the way forward … in a way that’s transparent.”

Rich countries must also fulfil their responsibilities by agreeing deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, Robinson said. Only by doing so, as well as providing clear guarantees they will deliver the cash they promise, could they rebuild trust with the poor world, she said.

Relations between rich and poor nations were also strained, she said. “The trust is very fragile at the moment. There’s an anger, because the impacts of climate are much worse in the developing world,” she said. “The impact in poor countries is so devastating.”

On Thursday morning, the host country, Azerbaijan, published draft texts covering important aspects of the talks, but they were widely criticised as inadequate. The texts on a global financial settlement, called a new collective quantified goal, did not contain vital numbers such as the amount developed countries would be willing to contribute.

Other texts failed to reaffirm a vital commitment made last year to “transition away from fossil fuels”. Saudi Arabia and some of its allies have been pushing to remove such a reaffirmation from the outcome of Cop29.

New drafts of these texts, with the finance numbers included, are not expected until Friday afternoon. This is likely to push the conclusion of the talks into the weekend and into a race against the clock, as many developing country delegations are planning to leave.

There is pressure to conclude these finance talks in Baku, because Joe Biden is still in the White House until January. When Donald Trump takes office, he is expected to be hostile to all aspects of cooperation on the climate crisis.

mr. methane

When Donald Trump takes office, he is expected to be hostile to all aspects of cooperation on the climate crisis.

one of his more sensible policies. along with his war on woke. and his continued reliance on fossil fuels. and his immigration curbs.

giving in to your climate fantasists will render us both bankrupt and dependent on china, the most polluting nation on earth, who use slave labour to produce the materials and the tech that we need, and we will continue to enrich the chinese to produce this nonsense for us in order to achieve the unachievable goals we have set ourselves. i.e. net zero by tomorrow lunchtime. in pursuit of the deluded belief that we, humans, can actually reverse the regular and unpreventable changes to the climate that have been happening for the past billion years.

if you want to save the planet, then cut down the population, thereby using less of the limited resources available.

Originally Posted by taxexile

belief that we, humans, can actually reverse the regular and unpreventable changes to the climate that have been happening for the past billion years.

another lesson.......

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Previous climates can be explained by natural causes, while current climate change can only be explained by an excess of CO2 released by human fossil fuel burning. Records of past climates indicate that change happened on time scales of thousands to millions of years. The global rise in temperature that has occurred over the past 150 years is unprecedented and has our fingerprints all over it.

even if that is the case, there is nothing we can do about it so long as billions of people need food to be grown, harvested, produced ,packed, and distributed. the same goes for cars, buses, planes, medicines, clothes, electronics, building materials, and everyhting we humans either need or feel entitled to.

there is just not enough green energy available, maybe in 50 years when the tech. has advanced, but now or in 10 or 20 years, no chance. we need energy to survive, cheap energy. green energy is far too expensive at the moment. so for the time being ..... drill baby drill!

whatever we puny humans stupidly try to do, we cannot and will not change the weather, but the weather will change us. we will adapt one way or another.

but at the moment it is putin that presents the greatest danger, not a couple of degrees of heat.