Green transition needs funding

Jehangir Hussain

Jehangir Hussain

Just to avoid climate catastrophe, governments and institutions of the west will have to change their priorities

The Cop 27 talks in Sharm al Sheikh saw leaders of vulnerable countries making sharp criticism against the west’s inaction.

A transition away from fossil fuels and towards low-carbon energy is the only way to keep the  planet safe and habitable for the mankind. The transition has begun, but it has miles to go. The needed changes require money. Development of new technology to generate renewable energy needs investment. Resources are needed also to protect societies from the harms caused by the global warming to help them adjust to the changed conditions.

A new report presented at the Cop27 UN climate summit says that developing countries need about $2trillion by 2030 for making the necessary changes.

The pledge made in 2009 that $100billion worth of climate funding would be made annually by the rich countries in the poorer ones has been broken. But, at Cop27, the developing countries succeeded in getting loss and damage on the agenda for the first time. Until now, five European countries agreed to contribute to a fund to help vulnerable countries manage global heating’s destructive effects. These commitments were insufficient.

The circumstances are far from auspicious, with the follow-up work on emissions promised in Glasgow in 2021 mostly not delivered. Progress on loss and damage, and other mechanisms to support a green transition in the countries that can least afford it, would be the best possible outcome from the negotiations. So far, funding has been skewed away from adaptation and towards emissions cuts – which means that the poorest countries, with lowest emissions, have received the least.

The dangerous carbon emissions and global warming are the byproducts of what the wealthy countries have done since industrialisation. The world knows that there are alternatives to this destructive pattern. Renewable energy, social change to limit the forms of consumption, are at the heart of the needed agenda.

Channelling finance towards the countries that need it, was never so urgent, as the recent floods in Pakistan demonstrated. It’s a moral imperative, since the people and places most imperiled by the climate emergency did the least to cause it. The international community wasted decades due to the obstructive behaviour of vested interests, mainly fossil fuel industries and states, but also ideologues that favour markets, unguided by states, to choose their path.

Governments know that this was wrong. Still the countries and institutions with the most resources, and the greatest share of responsibility in the international money system, are hesitant. If Cop27 can shift their priorities and rouse them to reject the broken model that got the world to this sorry pass, it will be a success. What the world needs more than anything is a far more ambitious climate funding arrangements.

Making a transition away from fossil fuels is the only way to keep the planet safe and habitable for future generations. That transition has begun, but it has miles to go. And the needed changes cost money. Resources are needed also to protect societies from global warming and to help them adjust to the changed conditions.

The pledge made in 2009 by the developed countries to make  $100billion in climate funding annually to the poorer ones has been broken. But developing countries have succeeded in getting loss and damage on to the formal Cop agenda for the first time. So far, five European countries have agreed to contribute to a fund to help vulnerable countries manage global heating’s destructive effects. These commitments were insufficient.

Carbon emissions and global warming are the byproducts of what developed countries did since industrialisation.

Channelling funds to the countries that need it, was never so urgent, as the recent floods in Pakistan demonstrated. No doubt, it is in common interests to limit global harming  as far as possible. The international community wasted decades due to the obstructive behaviour of vested interests, mainly fossil fuel industries and states, but also those who favour markets, unguided by states, would choose their path.

This was wrong. Still the countries and institutions with the most resources, and the greatest share of responsibility in running the international money system, are reluctant to do what they ought to shift their priorities and rouse them to reject the broken model that got the world to this sorry state. The world needs  an ambitious climate funding arrangements in place.

jehangirh01@gmail.com