Ed Miliband is right to say that “there is no path to a stable climate without helping developing countries embrace the clean energy revolution” (here's what we learned at Cop29. Columns aside) An unstoppable transition to clean energy is occurring, November 25). However, it suggests that the $300 billion climate finance target adopted by Cop29 to help low-income countries tackle the climate crisis is triple the previous figure of $100 billion without taking into account inflation adjustments. is misleading.
It is also a gross exaggeration to say that the deal will help poor countries decarbonize and protect their people. Even without taking inflation into account, it's only a fraction of the money needed, much of which is likely to come as a loan with debt.
The agreement means that low-income countries, which contributed little to causing the crisis and are often already highly indebted, will bear most of the costs of adaptation and loss and damage. Worse, people will not be protected and the transition to a low-carbon economy will be uneven, at the expense of the most marginalized communities.
Miliband has said we are in a time of “huge pressure on public finances”, but this is due to political choices that could repeatedly result in the wealthiest people and businesses not paying their fair share. This is because, at the same time, the world's carbon budget has been misappropriated with huge amounts of money. emissions.
Climate finance targets will only make sense if rich countries, including the UK, recognize their responsibility and provide most of the funding from public finance. By targeting the biggest and wealthiest polluters, governments can quickly and equitably secure the funding they need while keeping the burden off ordinary households. Climate finance is neither a charity nor a business opportunity. It is a matter of justice and legal obligation.
Chiara Liguori
Oxfam, Senior Adviser on Climate Justice Policy
It is not surprising that Ed Miliband takes a positive view of the outcome of COP29 and claims that an energy transition towards cleaner energy is occurring, but his analysis is insufficient. Firstly, he makes no mention of the UK's responsibility for historic carbon emissions.2 Remains in the atmosphere – means that being responsible for the current share (1%) is not enough. Second, he seems to claim that tripling North-South funding was a major success. This clearly emphasizes that this is not the view of small island states or developing states, especially where the proposed agreement risks placing additional debt burdens on poorer states. Third, he sidesteps the thorny issue of renewable energy resource depletion and the even thornier issue of North-South commercial relations, which appear no different from previous exploitative relations.
However, the major weakness of this argument is that it imagines that there is actually some sort of “transition.” A quick glance at the numbers clearly shows that these new forms of energy are increasing in addition to other forms of energy, especially fossil fuels, all of which continue to increase. Although the possibility of future migration is not excluded, it is incorrect to use this term for past or current trends. The picture therefore remains bleak, and the main potential for improvement would be significant reductions in energy production and use in the North and China. Unfortunately, the economic dogma of GDP growth makes this impossible.
steve brown
Fontenay-sous-Bois, France
Patrick Greenfield's article highlights how Cop29 states have agreed to establish new common rules for the development of carbon credit markets (24 November). However, several persistent challenges undermine the credibility of these reformed markets. To restore this confidence, we believe we need to address two key areas of improvement.
the first one is bigger transparencyOne of the. Article 6.4 methodological requirements approved by COP 29. This requires transparency of the data sources, calculation and monitoring methods used to establish the estimates, including those related to reference scenarios, project additionality compared to emission reduction effects, and potential carbon leakage. promote. of Article 6.4 Supervisory Authority Responsible for ensuring transparency in authentication methods. But efforts need to go further.
Disclosing corporate transactions in carbon credits and the distribution of proceeds across the value chain is essential. Such transparency allows us to better assess the real impact of offset projects andgreen washing”.Solutions such as digital platforms, regulations that make it easier to track carbon credits, exchange price publication, and standardized information can meet this critical need for transparency.
The second area to address is that the reliability of the reference scenarios used to calculate credits must be supported by robust statistical methods. These enable more accurate reference scenarios, thereby strengthening the robustness and legitimacy of carbon credits. However, these methods increase risk for project developers and can reduce the supply of credit. At the same time, companies seem to be: Lack of incentives to prioritize high-quality credits. Therefore, it is important to implement better evaluation and clearer labeling of high-quality credits.
A lack of confidence in carbon credits is not inevitable. COP29 is a step in the right direction, but strengthening transparency requirements and significantly reforming evaluation methodologies are essential to restore the full legitimacy of these mechanisms.
philippe dracourt
INRAE Research Director, Climate Economics Committee Chair
Tara Lortie
INRAE PhD Candidate, Climate Economics Committee Chair
Anna Creti
Paris-Dauphine University PSL Professor, Professor of Climate Economics
Andreas Contreon
Professor of Environmental Economics and Public Policy, University of Cambridge
