Opinion: With climate catastrophes front of mind, the international community agreed for the first time to develop a global loss and damage fund.
, providing funds to countries suffering from climate impacts , has been hotly debated by richer and poorer countries for years and was mostly a non-starter at the climate negotiations.
But as many observers noted, it’s perverse to push forward on loss and damage without also advancing on what’s causing climate disasters. Here progress was depressingly scant. No new ambitions on cutting emissions were announced. Rather than acknowledging the obvious need to phaseout fossil energy , the negotiators just cut and pasted the relatively weak call from COP26 to phasedown use of unabated coal.
The agreement also emphasized the financial necessities/opportunities involved in transitioning to a low carbon world and called for the refashioning of multilateral financial institutions aligned with the challenge at hand. Finally, multiple mentions of just transition, pursuing equity and justice in conjunction with climate action, suggest that climate justice concerns are becoming mainstream in the international community.
المملكة العربية السعودية أحدث الأخبار, المملكة العربية السعودية عناوين
Similar News:يمكنك أيضًا قراءة قصص إخبارية مشابهة لهذه التي قمنا بجمعها من مصادر إخبارية أخرى.
COP27 delivers climate fund breakthrough at cost of progress on emissionsSHARM EL\u002DSHEIKH — Countries closed this year’s U.N. climate summit on Sunday with a hard\u002Dfought deal to create a fund to help poor countries being battered by…
اقرأ أكثر »
Globe Climate: The COP27 1.5-degree goal still shows signs of life... for nowAlso inside: Nickel is the key to an electric vehicle transition. Is mining it making Canadians sick?
اقرأ أكثر »
COP 27 and a glass half fullLONDON, U.K.—As after every climate summit, the air is filled with shouts of rage and despair. What was agreed was unclear and inadequate, and what was left undecided or simply ignored was vast and terrifying. For example, they still haven’t managed to agree that the world needs to stop burning fossil fuels. What? Isn’t that what this whole traveling circus is about? The climate is getting hotter because we’re burning fossil fuels for energy. Soon, people will die in large numbers, and in 20 or 30 years, entire countries will become uninhabitable, so stop! Alternative energy sources are available! Act now, or a global disaster will happen! Yes, that’s what it’s about, and every year tens of thousands of politicians, experts, campaigners, and lobbyists trek to a different location—last year in Glasgow, Scotland, COP27 this year in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, next year the United Arab Emirates—to debate and decide how to deal with this existential threat. And in all those 27 years, they haven’t even managed to mention the name of the threat? No, they haven’t. Last year, for the first time, they actually inserted the word “coal” into the final report—we will eventually “phase it down” (not “out”), they said—but the words “gas” and ‘oil’ are still taboo. This is what you get when a global institution is ruled by consensus. Everybody has a veto, including the coal-, gas-, and oil-dependent countries—and the short-term interests of some (money and rapid fossil-fuelled economic growth) clash with everybody’s long-term interest in not experiencing a massive population die-back and civilizational collapse. Oh, well. This is the price you pay for belonging to a species still emerging from a long tribal past that had developed a high-tech, high-energy civilization before it was culturally equipped to manage it. Do the best you can, and hope that it will be enough. So much for the philosophy. What actually happened at Sharm el-Sheikh? After the inevitable all-night negotiations (tw
اقرأ أكثر »
Opinion: The growing threat of disinformation calls for a global responseAs Russia has shown, disinformation needs to increasingly be understood as a tool of war, says Saad Hammadi.
اقرأ أكثر »