Climate negotiations heat up in Egypt on Friday. After a long night of jamming, the Egyptian presidency has finally made blistering proposals for agreements on several of the most contentious issues. At the same time, bilateral meetings at a very high level created speculation about what was really going on.
Among other things, China’s chief negotiator Xie and his US counterpart John Kerry were seen locking themselves in a room for three hours on Thursday night. This may be a sign that the two countries are close to agreement on the most difficult issue at the climate meeting: the creation of a new fund to pay compensation to countries most affected by the consequences of climate change, the so-called damages and losses.
It was an absolute requirement More vulnerable countries, such as low-lying island nations and countries in the Horn of Africa, are currently experiencing severe drought. By allying with China, they have put forward the proposal to make rich countries see red, not least the European Commission, which they believe reflects the world as it looked 30 years ago.
in the current draft There are three new proposals on the table. But only one of them has been met by the weaker countries: that a new UN fund has already been set up here in Sharm el-Sheikh. The other two proposals are, in different ways, pushing the issue to next year’s climate summit in Dubai.
At the same time, the rich countries of the world now appear to be backing away from their earlier stubborn resistance. Above all, the European Union, once a staunch opponent of the new fund, has now fizzled out.
When EU Commission Vice-President Frans Timmermans met reporters outside the EU pavilion on Friday morning, in front of an eerie wall of wooden pallets, it was clear the EU was now accepting the request.
A number of countries continue to insist that all they want is a fund. We have proposed to them a mosaic of possibilities that can fund compensation immediately, and for this we do not need a new fund. But they kept saying no, Timmermans said, continuing:
– If this is the only way to reach an agreement here in Sharm el-Sheikh, then we can live with a fund.
Sweden also appears to be backing away Something from the previous crystal is clear not to a new box. Climate Minister Romina Pourmokhtari (left) tells DN:
We have a common position in the European Union. Sweden stands behind the European Union, even if we still think that creating a new fund is not an ideal solution.
However, the new fund – if it becomes a reality – will not be what China and the G-77 countries have demanded. Frans Timmermans was clear on Friday morning that the new fund could only become a reality under two conditions.
First, the fund should only target the most vulnerable countries. What that means will be a matter of dispute in the future, but least developed countries and low island states are mentioned in speculation.
The second requirement of the European Union It targets China and other economies that have grown economically robust in recent decades.
– Timmermans said: – The fund must have a broad funding base, so that the economic situation is taken into account now in 2022 and not in 1992.
In other words, the EU also demands that China pay into the fund, otherwise nothing will happen.
At the same time, the issue of the potential fund is closely linked to several other issues in the agreement, not least over demands for faster emissions cuts and last year’s main contentious issue regarding fossil fuels.
Until the Glasgow Climate Agreement, fossil fuels had not been mentioned before in climate agreements, due to strong opposition from major fossil fuel countries such as Saudi Arabia, India and China. So some have seen the relatively weak wording with promises to “phase out” coal power without carbon dioxide capture and phase out ineffective fossil subsidies as significant progress.
But the wording has it too Criticized for being too weak and not responding to what the research says. So, there were high hopes for a narrowing ahead of this year’s meeting. Earlier this week, there were demands that not only coal power should be “phased out”, but all fossil fuels should be “phased out”.
However, he seems completely blown away now. Instead, the call to phase out coal power is repeated (aside from one place where “phase-out” is mentioned, but this is considered a proofreading error). In contrast, the call for phasing out ineffective subsidies has been replaced by “rationalizing ineffective fossil subsidies”.
What we are seeing in the field of reducing emissions is very worrying. Tom Evans, policy advisor at E3G think tank, says it is not moving forward from Glasgow and certainly not heeding calls for stronger language on the 1.5 degree target or on climate targets for 2030.
– We can only have stronger language on reducing emissions if we get a package to deal with damage and losses, he says.
It was Frans Timmermans on Friday morning It is clear that the European Union does not see any point in promising money and money if at the same time you do not have strong formulas for reducing emissions.
Doing all of this only has a real impact if we reduce our emissions at the same time. Unless you seriously reduce emissions, there is no amount of money on the planet that can deal with damage and loss or adaptation.
“Falls down a lot. Internet fanatic. Proud analyst. Creator. Wannabe music lover. Introvert. Tv aficionado.”