Throwing cash at the problem will not solve climate crisis

The world after COP29 in Azerbaijan will be looked at as more of the same, if not worse.

The bitterly negotiated climate deal, reached after two weeks of wrangling, was dismissed by poorer nations, which are at the mercy of worsening climate disasters, as too little to meet the challenges awaiting us all, rich and poor, polluters and non-polluters alike. The funding package of $300 billion annually to help vulnerable nations by 2035 could help lessen the force of the blow, but throwing cash alone to moderate and not end climate change will not limit the hardship in poorer and richer nations alike.

The climate emergency is no longer only a problem for poor, underdeveloped nations, as the recent floods in Spain and other calamities hitting various parts of the world have shown.

The deteriorating weather is being felt and seen everywhere, as experts warn that 2024 will not only be the hottest year on record, but almost certainly the first in which the 1.5 degrees Celsius warming limit set in the Paris Agreement will be surpassed.

With extreme heat, warmer oceans, rising sea levels and both more drought and more extreme rainfall, the danger is that dramatic tipping points will be reached and breached, such as the Amazon becoming a savanna, from which there would be no turning back.

As Antonio Guterres, the UN secretary-general, warned world leaders in Baku, the planet is experiencing a “masterclass in climate destruction.” The consequences are likely to further exacerbate the threats to an already-fragile natural ecosystem, reduce agricultural yields, increase prices and drive people from their homes for mere survival or a more secure future elsewhere, often toward developed nations in the Global North.

The war in Ukraine and spreading conflicts in the Middle East have diverted global attention to security and energy availability

Mohamed Chebaro

Protecting our planet has clearly slipped in the world powers’ list of priorities and I am afraid that the subject has increasingly become a bone of contention in advanced Western countries. It is now a tool favored by those on the far right to whip up discontent and disruption as they seek power. These forces are attempting to force governments to abandon their net-zero pledges and their commitments to transform their countries’ economies.

In particular, the EU, which is the largest contributor to climate finance, has seen right-wing backlashes against its green agenda. This has further cornered the nations in the bloc that have pledged big sums of public money to transition their people and economies to a less polluting way of life.

Among the biggest factors that clouded the negotiations in Baku — and will likely cloud the prospect of a better deal at COP30 in Brazil next year — was the looming return of climate skeptic Donald Trump as president of the US, the world’s biggest economy, the largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases and the top producer of oil and gas.

Trump, who will take office in January, has pledged to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement on climate change, as he did during his first term in the White House.

The war in Ukraine and spreading conflicts in the Middle East, meanwhile, have diverted global attention to security and energy availability, with many governments facing a more uncertain future and, as a result, are tightening their purse strings.

At COP29, nations struggled to reconcile long-standing divisions over how much the developed nations, which are most responsible for historic greenhouse gas emissions, should provide to the poorer countries that are least responsible but most impacted by Earth’s rapid warming.

After almost 30 COP summits and thousands of meetings, the conference in Baku saw yet another round of acrimonious negotiations turn into an annual show. It demonstrated the glaring divides between governments, corporations, industries, bankers, lobbyists, scientists and activists reflecting all schools of thought, from climate change deniers to doomsday promoters, all in the name of defending planet Earth.

The world has clearly wasted many opportunities to more effectively design and implement the means to protect the planet for all

Mohamed Chebaro

The result is a small dent in the shape of a deal pledging $300 billion in annual climate finance by 2035. Many developing countries said this would not be enough to help them deliver their robust national climate plans. As usual, the devil will be in the details and that is likely to come up in the discussions between countries in the run-up to next year’s COP30 summit, where they will map out their next set of emissions-cutting plans. And those talks are already looking like they will be fraught, as many nations have said they will miss the February deadline to submit their updated national climate plans.

Businesses have called for these plans to include projects and efforts that are “investment-ready” — and with as much specificity as possible — to help investors gauge their long-term commitments and risks.

Money will only start flowing once the shared goals agreed at events like COP29 are translated into “regulation, legislation and other policy measures.” And then comes the biggest challenge: whether the commitments to implementing these policies and rules will ever see the light of day.

The world has clearly wasted many opportunities to more effectively design and implement the means to protect the planet for all. Since the 2015 Paris Agreement set the parameters for steps that could limit the planet’s heating, nations have repeatedly delayed and deluded themselves. At times, it was that the technology of the future would trap more of the carbon that we emit. Twenty years later, as the “age of AI” dawns, it seems like artificial intelligence is contributing more emissions instead of providing tangible solutions.

Public-private initiatives to invest in renewable energy have made important headway, but they remain short of being a silver bullet to reduce emissions across the board.

Throwing cash at the problem without reconfiguring the profit-seeking, exploitative nature of global economic activities was never likely to succeed on its own. Even if you persuade people to recycle and go about their activities in a sustainable way, the public and private sector bodies responsible for managing and disposing of waste in an environmentally friendly way are often below par. This is sadly driven by models that aim to reduce costs and maximize profits.

Many have already reached the conclusion that the world is limping toward a hotter future. A belief in the ability of the planet to self-correct despite human activities tipping it off balance remains the only hope, as governments and leaderships at all levels continue their squabbles for geostrategic prowess and profits.

• Mohamed Chebaro is a British Lebanese journalist with more than 25 years of experience covering war, terrorism, defense, current affairs and diplomacy. He is also a media consultant and trainer.