Speakers frequently use the phrase “climate remediation” to describe the responsibility to compensate future generations for past harm. Lisa Vanhala, a political scientist at University College London who studies loss and damage negotiations, explains that it reflects a tradition as old as World War I, when several nations responsible for paying for the cleaning. But wealthy polluters like the US still fear that they could be used to hold them accountable at sites outside the UN, despite previous COP agreements to avoid claims. on legal liability. Those countries want to keep the conversation going for the future, away from past harm, preferring to use the phrase “loss and damage” on the negotiating table. Worried about alienating rich nations, the financial backers have largely agreed to say those terms – at least in the negotiating room. The UN requires consensus to move forward.
The question remains what the phrase “loss and damage” really means. One idea, led by Germany before the COP, is a type of insurance scheme that will be covered when a climate-related disaster occurs. The scheme, which the EU calls the Global Shield, will likely have help from wealthier countries to cover premiums and will complement ongoing disaster relief efforts. At the COP, several countries, including Belgium and Ireland, pledged to fund the program.
But other countries want a fund to support the loss and damage in the UN. Among the fiercest advocates are some small island nations that pioneered the loss and damage idea, who say that any insurance plan cannot be based on the cost of a plan. on funding for affected countries. “As climate impacts worsen, some places will become unsustainable,” said Mihai Robertson, who leads the financial negotiations for AOSIS, a group of small island nations. Plus, he added, insurance is good at covering sudden disasters but not slow-onset changes like desertification and sea level rise. The group’s member states have a wide range of ideas on how to fund the United Nations loss and damage fund, including grants from polluters or other measures such as taxing profits. of oil companies.
Late Tuesday in Egypt, as world leaders left, leaving negotiators with their march orders, some were a little more optimistic about the fund’s creation. Barbados’ Mottley said in a press conference Tuesday: “Suffice it to say momentum is picking up. There are challenges ahead, including signs that the UK may be unwilling to provide funding and uncertainty over the US position as it emerges after the midterm elections. Also uncertain is the role of countries, such as China and India, which are major polluters today but have not contributed much to the problem in the past. On the sidelines of the talks, Gaston Browne, prime minister of Antigua and Barbuda, stressed that everyone must step up. “The polluter must pay. I don’t think there is a free ticket for any country,” he said.
Meanwhile, more action is taking place outside of the UN process. At COP27, New Zealand and other polluters set up their own loss and damage funds, joining a movement led last year by Scotland, a non-member of the United Nations, pledged a total of $7 million in support for loss and damage. It is “very, very small” given the possible trillions of dollars in damages and losses, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon admitted at an event. Covering huge costs cannot be resolved through an “alliance of those willing” to decide for themselves, she said, emphasizing the importance of finding consensus in negotiations. judge COP.
She turned to Huq, her copy worker, thanking him for the years of work to make that happen. He replied that he is often asked why he still attends the COP every year, despite its consistent shortcomings. His answer was unwavering optimism. This year, at least, they’ll be talking about money, and that’s a start. “We played this game for years, and we lost,” he said later, “but this time we got it.”
