Consider having a life-threatening illness. All scientific assessments point to a definitive diagnosis and a grim prognosis. Yet, upon visiting a doctor, they fail to acknowledge the condition directly. After some brief small talk, they shake your hand and suggest scheduling your next appointment in a year.
No one would accept such a medical standard, yet this mirrors our approach to climate change. The 30th Conference of the Parties (COP) Summit wrapped up last weekend in Belém, Brazil. While notable strides have been made in addressing climate change, particularly with the 2015 Paris Agreement aimed at restricting temperature increases to below 1.5°C, this goal is largely unachieved. Nonetheless, it steers us towards reduced warming compared to what might have been without it.
However, it’s evident that the COP process is becoming inadequate for the challenges we face. As highlighted in our report on page 6, COP30 concluded without even mentioning fossil fuels—the primary driver of climate change—in the final document. Despite over 80 nations advocating for a roadmap toward a “post-fossil fuel transition,” this initiative faced resistance from oil-rich nations like Saudi Arabia, a former organizer of COP. The necessity of consensus within COP leaves us only with the promise of future discussions at COP31 in Turkey next year.
“
Nations advocating for climate action should prioritize solar power and battery technology. “
This situation cannot persist, but changing the COP process will be a challenge. If we can’t advocate for an end to the fossil fuel era through scientific and political means, we must turn to technological and economic solutions.
Nations committed to climate action should concentrate on solar energy and battery technologies, providing the world with cheaper alternatives to oil and gas. Countries striving for a sustainable future might need to implement economic sanctions against those showing disinterest in progress. Whatever the course of action, simply saying “see you next year” is no longer a viable option.
Solar power plants in South Africa – discussions on clean energy support at COP30
Emmanuel Crozet/AFP via Getty Images
This year’s COP, commencing on November 10 in Belém, Brazil, is not expected to yield a substantial new global agreement for addressing climate change. The emphasis will be on clarifying the operational details of existing agreements.
Prior to the summit, nations were tasked with submitting revised pledges to lower emissions, called Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). However, only 67 out of 195 signatories of the Paris Agreement have done so. Countries have until the end of October to revise their plans; ones to watch are the European Union, which has set targets as a consortium, and India, which is currently lagging. Additionally, President Donald Trump’s exit from the Paris Agreement effectively rendered the United States’ commitments void. Goals submitted under President Joe Biden’s administration are expected in December 2024.
On a more optimistic note, China has committed to reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by 7 to 10 percent from their peak by 2035. While this falls short of curbing global warming to 2°C, it marks a progress towards the country’s initial absolute emissions reduction target. “This is a significant advance compared to what we’ve witnessed in the past, and it’s essential to view it positively,” remarked Manuel Pulgar Vidal, WWF’s global leader for climate and energy.
Adapting to climate change
Two agenda items may play critical roles in both mitigating and adapting to climate change.
Brazil is championing the Belém Action Mechanism for a Just Transition, a fresh approach that repositions the global shift to clean energy as an avenue for job creation and growth rather than just economic hardship. The initiative aims to aid nations in transforming key sectors such as energy, mining, and agriculture, anticipating pledges and systems to revamp industries while supporting communities impacted by these transitions.
However, in light of the severe backdrop of climate change, COP’s agenda seems to be transitioning from preventing climate change to adapting to its impacts. “COPs 1 through 29 unfolded under one climate paradigm; we now face a different climate reality, necessitating efforts to enhance safety for people,” noted Laurie Rayborn, a member of the climate think tank “Strategic Climate Risk Initiative.”
Another significant initiative is the Global Goals on Adaptation (GGA), which aims to quantify and compare the vulnerability of nations to climate change. It is set to include approximately 100 indicators like flood risk and food security. The GGA will facilitate global decisions on which nations should receive financial support and is a critical step toward financing those most affected.
However, world leaders must avoid becoming overly fixated on adaptation at the expense of mitigation, cautioned Leyborn. “There are scenarios where mitigation takes a backseat, but that leads to nowhere. Less mitigation translates to more adaptation, and we could be caught in a destructive cycle.”
Addressing fiscal disparities
As affluent nations fall short in providing the necessary financing for developing countries to adapt and combat climate change, Brazil aims to maintain funding aligned with the Baku to Belém roadmap. The target is to escalate global climate finance to $1.3 trillion annually by 2035.
Low-income nations are looking to their wealthier counterparts for subsidies while they struggle with the impacts of significant emissions that harm their agriculture. Wealthy nations are exploring funding avenues via private investments, debt exchanges, development bank support, and innovative financing strategies such as Tropical Forest Forever Facilities (TFFFs).
The TFFF is anticipated to launch formally at COP30 to finance forest conservation through private investment. Brazil and other nations will secure initial investments into the fund, which can then borrow nearly $100 billion from major private investors at favorable interest rates. The TFFF will reinvest these borrowed funds into sustainable initiatives that yield higher returns, with profits directly benefiting nations that safeguard their forests.
Brazil is already committing a billion dollars while the World Bank has agreed to host the fund by the end of October. The TFFF has the potential to create a sustainable conservation model that could generate $4 billion each year for the preservation of the world’s diminishing forests.
With few ambitious declarations anticipated at the COP, the pressure on the TFFF to succeed is rising, necessitating substantial investments from many nations in the billions.
“The TFFF’s launch is likely to be a highlight amid the struggles faced in international climate negotiations. Its success will serve as a crucial indicator for the future we face with significant climate shifts,” stated Simon Zadek from Morphosys, a Swiss climate finance consulting firm.
Preparatory ministerial meeting in Brasilia, Brazil ahead of COP30
Ton Molina/Bloomberg via Getty Images
As world leaders converge for the latest United Nations climate change conference a decade after the landmark COP21 summit in Paris, pessimism looms large. With the pivotal 1.5°C target already deemed unattainable and even the more lenient 2°C objective appearing increasingly elusive, the atmosphere is charged with concern.
The United Nations Environment Programme suggests, based on current national commitments, that the world is on track for a temperature rise of 2.3 to 2.5 degrees Celsius this century. Climatologists emphasize that the upcoming 30th United Nations Conference of the Parties in Belem, Brazil, could be crucial in altering the course of global warming, with oceans, forests, and polar ice sheets nearing tipping points. Significant action is essential to assist poorer nations in securing the estimated $1.3 trillion necessary each year by 2030 to transition away from fossil fuels, mitigate climate change, and adapt to its consequences.
Manuel Pulgar Vidal, WWF’s global leader in climate and energy, states, “The climate debate is under serious threat from not just political decisions but also economic, financial, and trade factors.” He adds that this makes the upcoming COP perhaps one of the most consequential since 2009, as vital as Paris but in an entirely different context.
In reality, however, the expectations held by negotiators are muted. The prospect of a groundbreaking multilateral agreement akin to that of Paris seems far-fetched in the current fragmented political landscape.
The previous COP29 held in Baku, Azerbaijan, concluded with disappointing outcomes, as wealthier nations pledged considerably fewer fiscal contributions than poorer counterparts anticipated. Consequently, trust in the COP process has diminished, leading to discussions on whether the existing framework is still viable.
“Private investment is lacking, nations appear to be retreating on their commitments to move away from fossil fuels, and there are no new Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) offered,” remarks Claudio Angelo from Brazilian NGO Klima Observatory. “The atmosphere surrounding climate action feels incredibly strained.”
Tensions ignited by trade disputes and geopolitical conflicts have infiltrated climate negotiations, with former President Trump actively opposing climate initiatives. He notably withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement and curtailed efforts to limit fossil fuel use, urging other nations to do the same. On October 17, the International Maritime Organization postponed the formal endorsement of a plan aimed at reducing maritime emissions, incited by Trump’s threats of sanctions against supportive countries.
Economic sluggishness, rising living costs, and a rise in populist sentiments are complicating the implementation of climate-friendly policies. “2025 is shaping up to be the worst year for global climate action,” concludes Angelo.
Europe was initially anticipated to take a leadership role in climate diplomacy following the withdrawal of U.S. support; however, the continent remains divided as defense priorities, trade issues, and escalating energy expenses dominate discussions.
In Brazil, the host nation, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva—who campaigned on environmental protection—has approved new highway constructions in the Amazon and oil prospecting in the region, with an eye towards the upcoming elections.
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva visits the main venue of COP30 in Belem
Alessandro Falco/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Bringing the COP to Belem is also a contentious choice. This first-ever Amazon COP aims to highlight the stories of those and the forests affected by climate change, underscoring the bold vision necessary for global salvation. The Ministry of the Environment has declared that a greater number of indigenous delegates than ever before will attend COP30.
Nonetheless, many participants regard this decision as imprudent. A shortage of available accommodation has driven up prices, forcing NGOs, diplomats, and businesses to seek alternative sleeping arrangements like tents, shipping containers, or hammocks.
The United Nations also restricts accreditation, leading to concerns that rather than being an “implementing COP,” this one may turn out to be an “empty COP.”
“An organization that had eight certifications last year only secured two this time,” notes Carla Cardenas from the Rights and Resources Initiative, a coalition advocating for land rights for indigenous peoples. Cardenas raised worries that civil society groups aiming to hold leaders accountable may face restrictions in attendance while oil and gas lobbying organizations, which possess larger budgets, remain unaffected.
Ahead of the summit, there are some indications of a positive shift. Fears that not enough leaders would attend to achieve a quorum have lessened, as high-profile figures like Britain’s Keir Starmer decide to make last-minute trips.
Amid declining multilateralism, Brazil, known for its mediating role on the global stage, could serve as an ideal host to unite divergent perspectives within climate diplomacy.
The president’s office is adopting a practical stance in negotiations, indicating that no major headline-making declarations are anticipated this time. Brazil’s focus will likely be on implementing existing agreements rather than chasing media-friendly headlines.
While substantial international breakthroughs in Belém are unlikely, there remains potential for cities, regions, and businesses committed to climate action to step forward, according to Thomas Hale from Oxford University. Groups of states collaborating to announce environmental initiatives could still have a significant influence.
“Countries resistant to change, like the U.S., may stay on the sidelines, but that won’t define where the real action occurs,” he explains. “Although we may not see international decisions made at COP that will move us forward fundamentally, it can still provide a framework for many positive initiatives to arise.”
Next month, climate negotiators, advocates, and global leaders will gather in Belem, Brazil, for COP30, this year’s United Nations climate change summit.
For those who have attended a COP summit or observed it from a distance, the experience can be quite overwhelming. Numerous negotiation sessions occur at once, filled with intricate topics and jargon—everything from “dialogue” and “consultations” to “informal informal” discussions.
To an onlooker, it may seem like a bustling marketplace, steeped in its unique customs and largely disconnected from the outside world. Fortunately, the insights of Peter Betts, a well-respected figure in COP circles, offer clarity.
While many outsiders may not recognize Betts, he was the former chief climate change negotiator for the UK and EU, instrumental in laying the groundwork for the Paris Agreement and guiding the negotiations that culminated in 2015.
Sadly, Mr. Betts passed away from a brain tumor in October 2023. His posthumously published book, Climate Diplomats: A Personal History of the COP Conference, released in August of this year, provides a comprehensive view of the inner workings of the climate summit and chronicles the modern history of these events, starting from Betts’s appointment as head of UK international climate policy in 1998.
One key revelation is that while COPs are often set in exotic locales—from Peru to Paris, and Durban to Dubai—the life of a climate negotiator is anything but glamorous. Teams spend years preparing negotiating strategies for the two-week summit, yet they often find themselves confined to windowless temporary structures, finalizing crucial details.
“
Amid the chaos, negotiators must find a way to get everyone to the table and reach agreement “
During COP17 in Durban, Betts recounted how delegation offices were set up in a parking garage basement that “reeked of petrol and diesel,” while at COP15 in Copenhagen, meals consisted solely of large circular bread rolls filled with bland paste. Clearly, climate diplomats are not drawn to a life of luxury; their dedication to addressing the climate crisis is evident.
Through his writing, Betts guides readers on a whirlwind journey of how COP summits function, explaining the rules governing these meetings as well as the goals and positions of each participating nation.
The scale of the challenges is immense. Some countries prioritize securing increased financial assistance for development, others aim to commit nations to ambitious greenhouse gas emissions reductions, while some seek to maintain the status quo. Domestic politics, economic circumstances, and cultural perspectives further complicate negotiations.
In the midst of chaos, negotiators are tasked with uniting all parties to agree on next steps in combating climate change. This is no small feat.
Betts possesses a knack for clear communication and often employs dry humor, even when discussing the complex intricacies of multilateral climate finance. Through his narratives, readers begin to understand the meticulous crafting of a balanced agenda that aims to bring nations together towards a shared goal.
Things become particularly engaging when readers are granted behind-the-scenes access to pivotal summits like Copenhagen, Paris, and Glasgow. Betts shares anecdotes of prime ministers and presidents “eating biscuits like robots” during high-stress meetings, creating headlines at unplanned “damaging” press conferences, retreating into VIP areas to avoid their teams, and “erupting” in frustration when outcomes don’t align with their desires.
There’s no shortage of gossip about influential figures in Whitehall to keep British politicians intrigued, along with insights into the pitfalls of climate change advocacy efforts, which have, at times, hindered progress in emission reductions.
Despite criticisms suggesting that summits merely function as prolonged spectacles, evidence indicates they play a significant role in spurring global climate action. Before the signing of the Paris Agreement in 2015, projections suggested a potential increase of 5°C in global temperatures by the end of this century. Now, a decade later, that trajectory has shifted to approximately 2.7°C—still excessive but far from the dire future we once faced.
Diplomacy has the power to reshape the world. In this enlightening book, Betts unveils the intricate mechanisms behind this transformation.
A speech by US vice president JD Vance represented a disruptive consensus on how to approach AI. He attended the summit alongside other global leaders including India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and European Commission head Ursula von der Leyen. I did.
In his speech at Grand Palais, Vance revealed that the US cannot be hampered by an over-focus on global regulations and safety.
“We need an international regulatory system that promotes the creation of AI technology rather than strangle it. In particular, our friends in Europe should look to this new frontier, optimistic rather than fear. ” he said.
China was also challenged. Vance worked with the “authoritarian” regime in warning his peers before the country’s vice-president Zhang Guoqing with a clear reference to Beijing.
“Some of us in this room learned from our experience partnering with them, and what we’ve learned from your information to the authoritarian masters who try to penetrate, dig into your information infrastructure and seize your information. It means taking the country with you,” he said.
A few weeks after China’s Deepshek rattles US investors with a powerful new model, Vance’s speech revealed that America is determined to remain a global leader in AI .
2. Go by yourself
Naturally, in light of Vance’s exceptionalism, the US refused to sign the diplomatic declaration on “comprehensive and sustainable” AI, which was released at the end of the summit. However, the UK, a major player in AI development, also rejected it, saying the document is not progressing enough to address AI’s global governance and national security implications.
Achieving meaningful global governance for AI gives us even more distant prospects, as we failed to achieve consensus over seemingly incontroversial documents. The first summit held in Bletchley Park in the UK in 2023, at least voluntarily reached an agreement between major countries and high-tech companies on AI testing.
A year later, the gathering in Bletchley and Seoul had been carefully agreed, but it was already clear by opening night that this would not happen at the third gathering. In his welcoming speech, Macron threw the shade with a focus on Donald Trump’s fossil fuels, urging investors and tech companies to view France and Europe as AI hubs.
Looking at the enormous energy consumption required by AI, Macron said France stands out because of its nuclear reliance.
“I have a good friend on the other side of the ocean who says, ‘drills, babes, drills’. There is no need to drill here. Plugs, babysitting, plugs. Electricity is available,” he said. We have identified various national outlooks and competitive trends at the summit.
Nevertheless, Henry de Zoete, former AI advisor to Rishi Sunak on Downing Street, said the UK “played the blind man.” “If I didn’t sign the statement, I’d brought about a significant will with Trump’s administrators at almost cost,” he wrote to X.
3. Are you playing safely?
Safety, the top of the UK Summit agenda, has not been at the forefront of Paris despite continued concerns.
Yoshua Bengio, a world-renowned computer scientist and chairman of the major safety report released before the summit, told the Guardians of Paris that the world deals with the meaning of highly intelligent AI. He said that it wasn’t.
“We have a mental block to the idea that there are machines that are smarter than us,” he said.
Demis Hassabis ir, head of Google’s AI unit, called for Unity when dealing with AI after there was no agreement over the declaration.
“It’s very important that the international community continues to come together and discuss the future of AI. We all need to be on the same page about the future we are trying to create.”
Pointing to potentially worrying scenarios such as powerful AI systems behave at first glance, he added: They are global concerns that require intensive and international cooperation.
Safety aside, some key topics were given prominent hearings at the summit. Macron’s AI envoy Anne Boubolot says that AI’s current environmental trajectory is “unsustainable” and Christy Hoffman, general secretary of the UNI Global Union, says that AI is productivity at the expense of workers. He said that promoting improvements could lead to an “engine of inequality.” ‘ Welfare.
4. Progress is accelerating
There were many mentions of the pace of change. Hassavis said in Paris that the theoretical term for AI systems that match or exceed human on any intellectual task is “probably five years or something apart.”
Dario Amodei, CEO of US AI company Anthropic, said by 2026 or 2027, AI systems will be like a new country that will take part in the world. It resembles a “a whole new nation inhabited by highly intelligent people who appear on the global stage.”
Encouraging governments to do more to measure the economic impact of AI, Amodei said advanced AI could represent “the greatest change to the global labor market in human history.” I’ve warned.
Sam Altman, CEO of ChatGpt developer Openai, has flagged Deep Research, the startup’s latest release, released at the beginning of the month. This is an AI agent, a term for a system that allows users to perform tasks on their behalf, and features the latest, cutting-edge model O3 version of OpenAI.
Speaking at the Fringe Event, he said the deep research was “a low percentage of all tasks in the world’s economy at the moment… this is a crazy statement.”
5. China offers help
Deepseek founder Liang Wenfeng had no shortage of discussion about the startup outcomes, but he did not attend the Paris Summit. Hassavis said Deepshek was “probably the best job I’ve come out of China.” However, he added, “There were no actual new scientific advances.”
Guoqing said China is willing to work with other countries to protect security and share AI achievements and build a “community with a shared future for humanity.” Zhipu, a Chinese AI company in Paris, has predicted AI systems that will achieve “consciousness” by 2030, increasing the number of claims at the conference that large capacity AI is turning the corner.
6. Musk’s shadow
The world’s wealthiest person, despite not attending, was still able to influence events in Paris. The consortium led by Elon Musk has launched a bid of nearly $100 billion for the nonprofit that manages Openai, causing a flood of questions for Altman, seeking to convert the startup into a for-profit company.
Altman told reporters “The company is not on sale,” and repeated his tongue counter offer, saying, “I’m happy to buy Twitter.”
We were asked about the future of Openai’s nonprofit organizations. This is to be spun as part of the overhaul while retaining stocks in the profit-making unit. Things…and we’re completely focused on ensuring we save it.
In an interview with Bloomberg, Altman said the mask bid was probably an attempt to “slow us down.” He added: “Perhaps his life is from a position of anxiety. I feel the man.”
The US and the UK have opted not to sign the Paris AI Summit declaration concerning “comprehensive and sustainable” artificial intelligence.
The rationale behind the two countries’ decision to withhold their signatures from the document, endorsed by 60 other signatories, including China, India, Japan, Australia, and Canada, was not immediately clarified.
The UK’s Prime Minister’s official spokesperson stated that France is among the UK’s closest allies, but the government is committed to signing initiatives that align with the UK’s national interests.
Nevertheless, it was mentioned that the UK did sign the Sustainable AI Coalition of the Summit and supported the cybersecurity statement.
When asked if the UK’s refusal to sign was influenced by the US’s decision, the spokesperson asserted that the UK does not acknowledge or align with the reasons or stance of the US detailed in the declaration.
The rejection was confirmed following US Vice President JD Vance’s critical speech at the Grand Palais, denouncing the “overregulation” of European technology and cautioning against collaboration with China.
The Communique emphasized priorities such as ensuring AI remains open, inclusive, transparent, ethical, safe, secure, and reliable, while establishing an international framework for all stakeholders.
After the event, Elise Palace suggested that more countries could eventually sign the declaration.
Vance’s address conveyed dissatisfaction with the global approach to regulating and developing technology before leaders like French President Emmanuel Macron and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Keir Starmer was notably absent from the summit.
During his inaugural overseas trip as US Vice President, Vance expressed concerns about the EU’s regulatory measures, cautioning that excessive regulation in the AI sector could stifle transformative industries.
Vance also highlighted the risks of engaging with authoritarian regimes and issued sharp warnings directed at China regarding their exports of CCTV and 5G equipment.
China’s Vice President Zhang Guoqing echoed Vance’s sentiments, cautioning against deals that appear too good to be true, referencing his Silicon Valley learnings.
Vance’s speech primarily focused on AI safety, criticizing the cautious approach of the UK’s inaugural global AI summit in 2023 branded as an AI safety summit. He contrasted this with the potential of cutting-edge technologies that could be both self-aware and risky.
In a closing remark before departing from the meeting, Vance drew parallels to the significance of swords like the one held by Marquis de Lafayette, emphasizing their potential for freedom and prosperity when wielded appropriately.
He reflected on the shared heritage between France and the US, symbolized by the Sabers, emphasizing the need for a thoughtful approach to potentially dangerous technologies like AI, guided by the spirit of collaboration seen in historical figures like Lafayette and the American founders.
The global summit in Paris, attended by political leaders, technical executives, and experts, opened with a focus on the impact of artificial intelligence on the environment and inequality.
Anne Bouverot, Emmanuel Macron’s AI envoy, addressed the environmental impact of AI at the two-day gathering at Grand Palais in Paris.
Bouverot emphasized the potential of AI to mitigate climate change but also highlighted the current unsustainable trajectory. Sustainable development of technology was a key agenda item.
Christy Hoffman from the UNI Global Union emphasized the importance of involving workers in AI technologies to prevent increased inequality. Without workers’ representation, AI could exacerbate existing inequalities and strain democracy further.
Safety concerns were raised at the conference, with attendees expressing worries about the rapid pace of AI development.
Max Tegmark, a scientist, warned that the development of powerful AI systems could lead to unintended consequences similar to the scenarios depicted in a climate crisis satire film. His concerns echoed those from a previous summit in the UK.
The Paris summit, co-chaired by Macron and India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, focused on AI action. However, safety discussions were prominent given the potential risks associated with the development of artificial general intelligence (AGI).
Demis Hassabis, head of Google’s AI efforts, mentioned that achieving AGI is likely within the next five years and emphasized the need for society to prepare for its impact.
Hassabis expressed confidence in human ingenuity to address the risks associated with AGI, particularly in autonomous systems. He believed that with enough focus and attention, these concerns could be alleviated.
Police stand guard in front of a hotel ahead of the United Nations biodiversity conference COP16 to be held in Cali, Colombia on October 19th.
Fernando Vergara/AP/Alamy
Biodiversity loss is a crisis. And it's clearer than ever that the world isn't moving fast enough to solve it. Last weekend's COP16 summit in Cali, Colombia, collapsed in overtime, with too few countries present to agree on a global plan to halt the decline of nature.
“Unfortunately, too many countries and UN officials are working to address our species’ most pressing existential issues without the level of urgency and ambition needed to secure an outcome at COP16. “I came to Cali,” he says. Brian O'Donnell At the environmental advocacy group “Campaign for Nature.”
Signs of the lack of progress were evident from the start of the meeting, with nearly all countries demonstrating how far they have reached ambitious biodiversity targets set at COP15 two years ago, including protecting 30 percent of the planet's land. The deadline to submit a formal plan on how to achieve this was missed. Several more plans were brought forward during the two weeks of the summit, including plans from big countries like India and Argentina, but strategies for most countries have yet to be developed.
As COP16 began, it was clear that the world was not on track to achieve these goals. Since 2020, the area of Earth's land and oceans under formal protection has increased by just 0.5%, according to a UN report released during the summit. This is too slow a rate to protect 30 percent of the planet by the end of the decade.
And their protection is desperately needed. a report A report by the Zoological Society of London and the World Wildlife Fund released ahead of the summit found that vertebrate populations have declined by an average of 73 percent since 1970, and have increased by 4 percentage points since 2022. reportA report presented at a conference by the International Union for Conservation of Nature found that 38 percent of the world's tree species are at risk of extinction.
Many low-income countries said a lack of financial resources prevented them from developing and submitting plans on time, let alone starting implementation. At COP16, high-income countries pledged a total of around $400 million to support these efforts, but funding remains billions of dollars short of the annual target of $20 billion pledged by 2025. .
Negotiations went into overtime early Saturday morning, with no clear plan to close the funding gap and monitor progress toward the goal left unresolved. As delegates left, the number of countries present fell below the minimum required for decision-making, and the meeting was adjourned without reaching a resolution. The topic will be taken up at an interim meeting to be held in Bangkok, Thailand, in 2025.
“Nature is on life support and here in Cali, unless we reach a strong financial compromise, we risk collapse,” he says. Patricia Zurita At Conservation International, a nonprofit environmental organization.
Although COP16's failure to change the direction of fiscal issues disappointed observers, one important agreement was reached at the meeting. It's an agreement on how to collect revenue from products developed using Earth's genetic data. Before the conference is adjourned, each country will require pharmaceutical and other biotech companies that use such “digital sequence information” to donate 0.1% of their revenue or 1% of their profits to the “Kali Fund” We agreed to ask. This fund will be used to protect the biodiversity that is the source of such genetic data.
The fact that the agreement, which took nearly a decade of negotiations and is voluntary and less comprehensive than the African Union and some low-income countries had hoped, means that individual countries and companies This means that it depends greatly on how you respond to the situation. But the United Nations estimates that the fund could raise up to $1 billion a year for biodiversity. “We may be able to get some, but it's nowhere near the scale and speed that is required,” said Pierre du Plessis, a longtime African Union negotiator. Ahead of the meeting, he claimed: new scientist The fund should be bigger.
Indigenous peoples also see a victory ahead of the conference's suspension, with the establishment of formal institutions that will give them a stronger voice in biodiversity negotiations.
However, the overall atmosphere was heavy. “The really disappointing thing about COP16 is that [debates on] “Digital sequence information sucks every last drop of energy and time,” he says. Amber Scholz At the Leibniz Institute DSMZ in Germany.
One reason for the apparent lack of urgency is that the world treats climate change and biodiversity loss as two separate problems. The annual global climate summit attracts more participants and far more attention than the biodiversity negotiations. While 154 people attended last year's climate summit in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, only six leaders attended COP16. This is a problem when the two issues are intertwined. Climate change is one of the main threats to biodiversity, and the ecosystems with the highest biodiversity often also have the greatest ability to store carbon.
“I think the most important thing we need is to change the persistent neglect of biodiversity, especially when compared to climate change,” UN Secretary-General António Guterres said at the summit. mentioned in. “They are all interconnected and cannot be divided.”
Climate change protester Risipriya Kangujam takes the stage during the COP28 debate on December 11th
Dominika Zarzycka/NurPhoto via Getty Image
The COP28 climate summit in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, has gone into extra time, with a real possibility that negotiations will fail given how far countries are separated on the future of oil, gas, and coal. It has become a target. But whatever the outcome, this summit changed the way the world talks about fossil fuels and climate change.
“The calculations are being made for fossil fuels,” he says. David Waskow at the World Resources Institute, an environmental nonprofit organization. “This has put the issue front and center and changed the conversation around it, and I hope that will continue to be the case.”
At the summit, and in the months leading up to it, many countries and many civil society organizations lobbied for strong language on phasing out fossil fuels in any deal reached in Dubai. The phasing out of fossil fuels received unexpected attention near the end of last year’s COP27 summit in Egypt, but the role of fossil fuels in driving climate change as a major source of greenhouse gas emissions has never been more important. There has never been a COP with such continuous focus.
“Even a year ago, the historic debate on phasing out fossil fuels currently taking place at COP28 was completely unthinkable,” he says. Jonas Kuehl At the International Institute for Sustainable Development, Canada. “The joint efforts of nearly 130 countries and civil society forced them into a process that has been fruitless for many years.”
The draft core agreement, published on December 11, drew heavy criticism from a number of countries and organizations yesterday for not mentioning the phasing out of fossil fuels. However, the draft does mention the need to reduce the production and use of fossil fuels and makes two other references to these fuels. This alone represents a significant change from past summits, which referred to emissions but not major sources.
“This is the first COP to actually include the word fossil fuels in a draft decision,” he said. Mohamed Addo At Powershift Africa, a Kenyan energy think tank. “This is the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era.”
Summit participants are fundamentally divided on what should be included in the agreement. High-income Western countries, as well as small island states and some low-income countries such as Colombia and Kenya, are demanding stronger language on ending the use of fossil fuels to be part of the agreement. We are united. But countries that rely on oil and gas revenues, and those that consider fossil fuel development essential to future development, oppose disqualifying language.
“The United States, Canada, and Australia are all fossil fuel producers, but they are all perfectly aligned with European countries,” he says. Andrew Deutz At the Nature Conservancy. “This puts even more pressure on fossil fuel producing countries.”
Countries that oppose language phasing do so for a variety of reasons. For example, the Group of African States, while not totally opposed to such an agreement, recognizes that any agreement would have different responsibilities and timelines for phase-out, and that it is important for countries to implement energy transitions. It claims to provide support to do so.
“Asking Africa to phase out fossil fuels is like asking Africa to stop breathing without life support,” Nigeria’s Environment Minister Isiak Kunle Salako said at a press conference at the summit on December 12. African ministers also emphasized the need for further support. This is to adapt to the climate change that is already occurring.
Nigeria is part of a group of oil-exporting countries called OPEC, and its members, especially Saudi Arabia, have been the strongest opponents of the phase-out. But the overwhelming focus on fossil fuels means it may not matter in the long run.
“I think because of the pressure from oil and gas interests, if we don’t agree to phase out fossil fuels here, it’s likely to be a pyrrhic victory for them,” he said. bill hare At the think tank Climate Analytics. “They would have kept it going, but they wouldn’t have stopped it.”
A complete failure at COP28 could help build momentum towards an unjust end to the fossil fuel era, Hare says. “Next year we’ll probably see more countries wanting to phase out fossil fuels, more countries thinking about it more and putting more pressure on oil and gas producers.”
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
