World Agrees on $300B Climate Aid Financial Deal - After COP29 Summit 'Nearly Implodes' (cnn.com) 19
"At points there was fear the talks would implode, as groups representing vulnerable small island states and the least-developed countries walked out of negotiations Saturday," according to a new report from CNN.
But after weeks of international climate talks at COP29, "the world agreed to a new climate deal... "with wealthy countries pledging to provide $300 billion annually by 2035 to poorer countries to help them cope with the increasingly catastrophic impacts of the climate crisis." The amount pledged, however, falls far short of the $1.3 trillion economists say is needed to help developing countries cope with a climate crisis they have done least to cause — and there has been a furious reaction from many developing countries. a fiery speech immediately after the gavel went down, India's representative Chandni Raina slammed the $300 billion as "abysmally poor" and a "paltry sum," calling the agreement "nothing more than an optical illusion" and unable to "address the enormity of the challenge we all face."
Others were equally damning in their criticism. We are leaving with a small portion of the funding climate-vulnerable countries urgently need," said Tina Stege, Marshall Islands climate envoy. Stege heavily criticized the talks as showing the "very worst of political opportunism." Fossil fuel interests "have been determined to block progress and undermine the multilateral goals we've worked to build," she said in a statement...
There was also a push for richer emerging economies such as China and Saudi Arabia to contribute to the climate funding package, but the agreement only "encourages" developing countries to make voluntary contributions, and places no obligations on them... Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil exporter, which has pushed against ambitious action at past climate summits, seemed even more emboldened in Baku, publicly and explicitly rejecting any reference to oil, coal and gas in the deal.
The package "is also being criticised as short-sighted from the richer world's perspective," notes the BBC: The argument runs that if you want to keep the world safe from rising temperatures, then wealthier nations need to help emerging economies cut their emissions, because that is where 75% of the growth in emissions has occurred in the past decade.
But "Delegations more optimistic about the agreement said this deal is headed in the right direction," writes the Associated Press, "with hopes that more money flows in the future." The text included a call for all parties to work together using "all public and private sources" to get closer to the $1.3 trillion per year goal by 2035. That means also pushing for international mega-banks, funded by taxpayer dollars, to help foot the bill. And it means, hopefully, that companies and private investors will follow suit on channeling cash toward climate action. The agreement is also a critical step toward helping countries on the receiving end create more ambitious targets to limit or cut emissions of heat-trapping gases.
But after weeks of international climate talks at COP29, "the world agreed to a new climate deal... "with wealthy countries pledging to provide $300 billion annually by 2035 to poorer countries to help them cope with the increasingly catastrophic impacts of the climate crisis." The amount pledged, however, falls far short of the $1.3 trillion economists say is needed to help developing countries cope with a climate crisis they have done least to cause — and there has been a furious reaction from many developing countries. a fiery speech immediately after the gavel went down, India's representative Chandni Raina slammed the $300 billion as "abysmally poor" and a "paltry sum," calling the agreement "nothing more than an optical illusion" and unable to "address the enormity of the challenge we all face."
Others were equally damning in their criticism. We are leaving with a small portion of the funding climate-vulnerable countries urgently need," said Tina Stege, Marshall Islands climate envoy. Stege heavily criticized the talks as showing the "very worst of political opportunism." Fossil fuel interests "have been determined to block progress and undermine the multilateral goals we've worked to build," she said in a statement...
There was also a push for richer emerging economies such as China and Saudi Arabia to contribute to the climate funding package, but the agreement only "encourages" developing countries to make voluntary contributions, and places no obligations on them... Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil exporter, which has pushed against ambitious action at past climate summits, seemed even more emboldened in Baku, publicly and explicitly rejecting any reference to oil, coal and gas in the deal.
The package "is also being criticised as short-sighted from the richer world's perspective," notes the BBC: The argument runs that if you want to keep the world safe from rising temperatures, then wealthier nations need to help emerging economies cut their emissions, because that is where 75% of the growth in emissions has occurred in the past decade.
But "Delegations more optimistic about the agreement said this deal is headed in the right direction," writes the Associated Press, "with hopes that more money flows in the future." The text included a call for all parties to work together using "all public and private sources" to get closer to the $1.3 trillion per year goal by 2035. That means also pushing for international mega-banks, funded by taxpayer dollars, to help foot the bill. And it means, hopefully, that companies and private investors will follow suit on channeling cash toward climate action. The agreement is also a critical step toward helping countries on the receiving end create more ambitious targets to limit or cut emissions of heat-trapping gases.
By 2035 they say? (Score:1)
How much will the US pay by January 20th and how will the deal handle their withdrawal?
Re: (Score:3)
> Forking over billions to India and China is plain evil
Good thing that's not what's happening then, innit?
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Ultimately it's throwing our money at 3rd world despots to get their industrial revolutions on, or ramp them up, or maybe to buy weapons in the tr
Re: (Score:3)
Forking over billions to India and China is plain evil.
China is not a recipient of the funding.
Re: (Score:3)
Given that China's all time total emissions of CO2 has now eclipsed Europe's total emissions so China should be pledging just as much as Europe is. China's "we're just a poor developing country" figleaf to avoid paying their share has lost all credibility.
Re: (Score:1)
Given that China's all time total emissions of CO2 has now eclipsed Europe's total emissions
And who is going to believe that?
So this means China gets 300 BN from the EU? (Score:1)
I'm guessing this means China and India, because both are considered developing nations, get $300,000,000,000 from the US and EU, while the countries that need it, get nothing? I'm cure Iran and Russia are going to love the new Chinese-made weapons to use on Israel, and fentanyl makers will love the added cash flow to make more drugs for the SF and Portland streets, and the botters that plague social media will appreciate being flush with cash to do more rounds of propaganda and trolling.
I'd walk out of th
Never enough (Score:3, Insightful)
"You have money. Give us money."
"Here is money."
"Not enough. Give us more money."
"Here is more money."
"Still not enough."
GOTO start
Stupid victims! /s (Score:3)
"You have money. Give us money."
You have it entire backwards. It's "You broke your word. Pay us our restitution."
Why do act like the victim when you are the perpetrator?
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at it from the other side:
"I'm not cleaning up my mess! You do it!"
Climate disasters are like enemy attack (Score:2, Insightful)
Paris all over again. (Score:5, Insightful)
This means nothing. For it to matter, it would need:
- To be much larger
- Timed for immediacy, not a decade
- Used for the intended purpose, efficiently and without corruption and redirection
It's meaningless. More lip service, and not even good lip service. And this business about 75% of the growth in emissions being from emerging economies is a red herring. The growth doesn't matter. The total does. And that's a handful of countries.
If two guys are kicking you to death, and a third one looks like they're about to join in, paying the newcomer to go away doesn't solve your problem.
Well, governments are out (Score:2)
Either technology save us or we try to survive what is coming.
These summits are a joke (Score:2)
They accomplish nothing of substance and give the illusion of progress
The rich, whose fortunes depend on oil, will never give up oil
The poor will vote for anybody who promises to lower gas prices
There is no politically viable solution
I honestly DGAF about the third world anymore (Score:2)
The whining about colonialism has gone on long enough. Take care of your own damn self. Self-flagellating leftists can move to Honduras or wherever and dedicate their lives and savings to build whatever the fuck they need over there. Leave the rest of us alone. Heck, we can send all 9 million or whatever of our undocumented immigrants back to their own countries, now that they've learned all kinds of skills here in the USA.