We’re at the crux of the Paris Agreement. To put it bluntly, it’s a US$100 billion a year wealth transfer from developed nations who are also paying huge costs for their own dubious CO2 reduction efforts — to developing nations who appear unwilling to offer full transparency on how this wall of money is used in their countries to reduce carbon emissions.
Both the United States and Australia have been accused of stalling negotiations on the US$100 billion a year climate change fund, as well as allegedly putting the Paris Agreement at risk.
On Sunday, an emergency meeting between climate delegates at Bangkok closed with overwhelming tension. Major issues in the debate remain in stalemate, while Harjeet Singh from ActionAid said the Paris deal is ‘on the brink’.
A big problem is how the promised $US100 billion a year would be delivered by developed countries by 2020, and how upfront developing countries should be about their actions taken in the accord.
In July, we saw a meeting with Green Climate fund dissolve into hostility over who should manage the money, driving Howard Bamsey, the Australian representative, to resignation.
The unresolved issue
The fund is at the centre of the Paris Accord and continues to be an obstacle to success, with landmark talks to continue in December in Poland. The scheduled meeting is meant to provide a rough guideline for how the Paris Agreement will be implemented and tended to. The six day meeting in Bangkok was expected to assume a completed text in order to potentially be presented at the upcoming COP24 conference in Katowice, Poland.
But without stable commitments to finance for developing countries, the meeting ended in a stalemate.
‘Finance to developing countries — to both help them cut their greenhouse gas emissions and to support poor communities vulnerable to extreme climate shocks — remains a critical, unresolved issue,’ Oxfam policy analyst Tracy Carty said.
‘If developed country governments don’t step up by the time COP24 (the Poland meeting) kicks off in December, they risk putting the Paris Agreement in jeopardy,’ she said.
During the Bangkok debate, some countries insisted that the US be sidelined from negotiations. As turmoil has already beset the group set to distribute the limited funding that has been raised thus far.
US negotiators were accused by other delegates of ‘poisoning’ the discussion, even after US President Donald Trump’s negotiator declared their intention to back out of the accord.
And it makes sense.
As it stands, countries like Australia, Japan and the European Union, will be called upon to foot the bill. Leaving a major issue over whether the loans are or would be counter as part of this $US100 billion a year financing promise.
Despite this, the US said it will continue to send a team of negotiators to the United Nations, as well as IPCC gatherings.
The Paris agreement, launched in 2015, sought to strengthen the global response to climate change by keeping rises to global temperatures below two degrees Celsius.
And no one is saying that they don’t want to reduce the world’s global footprint, quite the opposite. What many opposing delegates are suggesting is that developed countries know exactly what their $US100 billion is being spent on.
PS: Free report reveals the political lie that costs us $4 billion a day. You pay for it on your power bill, at the fuel pump, and when you buy your groceries. Find out more here.