Cop 29 live: Poor countries may have to compromise on climate funding, says former UN envoy | Cop29

Poor countries may have to compromise on demands for cash to fight global warming, a former UN climate envoy has said, as UN negotiations enter their final hours at a stalemate., Guardian environment editor Fiona Harvey writes:

Former Irish president and two-time UN climate envoy Mary Robinson spoke on Thursday night about inflation, the coronavirus and conflicts, including Russia's war in Ukraine, in comments likely to disappoint poor countries at the COP29 summit. He said that in the midst of this crisis, the budgets of rich countries are reaching their limits. .

“This is financial, it is absolutely essential and it is the responsibility of developed countries,” she said in an interview with the Guardian. “But you can't narrow down what you can't narrow down.”

As of Thursday night, rich countries had yet to make formal financial offers to the poorer world, even though two weeks of talks continued until their final official day on Friday. The summit focuses on securing $1tn (£790bn) a year for poorer countries to transition to a low-CO2 environment.₂ Strengthen the economy and combat the effects of extreme weather events.

But rich countries are expected to be able to provide at most $300 billion a year in public funding, far less than many developing countries had hoped. Developed countries are likely to argue that the rest of the $1 trillion can be financed by other sources, including potential new sources such as private sector investment, carbon trading, and taxes on fossil fuels.

adam morton

Welcome to day 11 of Cop29 negotiations: the hurry and wait phase. And we may be waiting for a while, but no one knows how long, Guardian Australia climate and environment editor Adam Morton writes:.

Ministers and negotiators met into the early hours of this morning to try to find common ground on contentious issues. A big problem is the lack of dollar figures in the draft document on climate finance targets and the lack of consistency in recognizing previously agreed goals of tripling renewable energy and transitioning from fossil fuels to energy. This is something that some countries, particularly Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, are resisting. be explicitly repeated.

During Thursday's five-hour plenary session, dozens of countries expressed anger at what the Azerbaijan Police Chairmanship presented. It was very difficult to determine what this meant. On the other hand, we have been here many times before. At this stage of a climate summit, disappointment with less ambitious documents is not unusual.

On the other hand, the United Nations consensus process is unwieldy and there is ample potential for disruptive forces to put the cart before the horse if they so choose. Saudi Arabia has made clear throughout the year that it is dissatisfied with the references to fossil fuel transition in the document agreed in Dubai, and it has maintained its position in Baku. They made this point uncharacteristically clear during Thursday's plenary session, when Saudi delegate Albala Tawfik declared: “The Arab Group will not accept any document targeting specific sectors, including fossil fuels.”

It underlined how tough the battle will be in the coming hours and days. But some observers saw an upturn — at least he said the quiet things out loud. China has also expressed reluctance to repeat its words about fossil fuels, but it is thought to be open to changing its position, and what it does from here will be important.

Another big question is how much climate finance we are collectively prepared to devote to helping poor people develop clean economies, adapt to inevitable change, and repair the damage caused by the climate crisis. The problem is that rich countries are reluctant to clarify whether they have achieved this goal. Not caused. At least $1 trillion a year is needed, and the frustration of the world's most vulnerable countries is real.

Ultimately, if an agreement is to be reached in Baku, these two issues, climate finance and emissions reductions, will need to be decided in parallel. A larger fiscal target could allow for a more ambitious mitigation text, and vice versa. Getting there may involve filling in some cracks in the text with paper, and it will require leadership from organizers that is not always obvious. Let's see what happens today.