News | National
4 Dec 2024 13:29
NZCity News
NZCity CalculatorReturn to NZCity

  • Start Page
  • Personalise
  • Sport
  • Weather
  • Finance
  • Shopping
  • Jobs
  • Horoscopes
  • Lotto Results
  • Photo Gallery
  • Site Gallery
  • TVNow
  • Dating
  • SearchNZ
  • NZSearch
  • Crime.co.nz
  • RugbyLeague
  • Make Home
  • About NZCity
  • Contact NZCity
  • Your Privacy
  • Advertising
  • Login
  • Join for Free

  •   Home > News > National

    COP29: who pays for climate action in developing nations – and how much – becomes more urgent

    Extreme weather is already costing vulnerable island nations US$141 billion each year. How should rich nations contribute and who should pay the most?

    Nina Ives, PhD Candidate in Climate Change, Auckland University of Technology, David Hall, Senior Lecturer in Social Sciences and Public Policy, Auckland University of Technology
    The Conversation


    This year’s United Nations climate summit, the Conference of the Parties (COP29) which starts in Azerbaijan this week, has been dubbed the “finance COP”.

    Its key focus is on establishing a new collective goal for climate finance to help developing countries to reduce emissions and adapt to climate impacts.

    Within the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, 43 developed countries, including the United States, pledged to jointly mobilise US$100 billion a year by 2020 to “address the needs of developing countries”. But this didn’t specify how much money each country should contribute, nor which proportion should be used to cut emissions or adapt to impacts.

    It took until 2022 for countries to meet this goal, according to recent OECD assessments.

    Most European countries have contributed significantly, but the US, Canada and Australia have been criticised for not paying enough, given their large economies. The reelection of President Donald Trump now makes future contributions from the US uncertain.

    Recent research shows extreme weather is already costing vulnerable island nations US$141 billion each year. Estimates suggest this will rise to $1 trillion annually by 2030.

    Sharing the burden of climate action

    Channelling money towards climate actions is one way countries can contribute to tackling climate change in two broad categories:

    1. Mitigation (preventing future greenhouse gas emissions to reduce further climate change)

    2. Adaption (adjusting and preparing for the impacts of climate change).

    But what might a fair distribution of climate finance between countries look like today? How much climate finance could countries be expected to contribute towards a shared goal? And do we have adequate means and information for answering such questions?

    There are three burden-sharing principles commonly drawn on to answer these questions:

    • polluter pays means those who have caused the problem ought to clean it up

    • beneficiary pays means those who have benefited from actions which caused the problem ought to address it

    • ability to pay means those with the greatest financial means ought to contribute a bigger share.

    Each principle reflects a different understanding of fairness.



    All three of the above principles are linked to another principle which describes how countries bear different levels of responsibility for climate change in the past, and have variable capabilities for dealing with it in the present.

    This principle has underpinned several international climate treaties, including the 2015 Paris Agreement and 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

    The beneficiary-pays principle is increasingly being referred to in discussions of how costs could fall for climate adaptation measures. For instance, coastal communities could be expected to pick up a significant proportion of the tab for a sea wall because they will derive the benefit from such infrastructure.

    Principles of fair contribution

    To apply these principles, information about countries’ circumstances is used to calculate fair climate finance distributions.

    For instance, the ability-to-pay principle is often applied using metrics such as gross domestic product per capita and gross national income per capita, as well as the Human Development Index. All of these metrics provide indications of a country’s financial capacity for addressing climate change.

    The polluter-pays principle is commonly applied using information about countries’ historical greenhouse gas emissions and land-use practices.

    The results of applying these principles can vary significantly. A polluter-pays principle would place substantial financial burdens on large historical emitters, such as the US and China.

    Conversely, wealthy countries with low populations and high gross national income per capita (such as Liechtenstein, Singapore or Qatar) could be expected to bear the highest climate finance burdens under an ability-to-pay principle.

    For Australia, climate finance burdens would not vary substantially across different principles. But for Aotearoa, these would be significantly higher under the ability-to-pay than the polluter-pays approach.

    These different distributions reflect perspectives on what constitutes a country’s fair climate finance burden.

    People trying to drag mud on a street full of debris after Spain's worst floods in a generation.
    Interpretations of fairness and how much wealthy countries should contribute to climate finance differ. Cesar Manso/AFP via Getty Images

    Moral adequacy of countries’ pledges

    Results of applying these principles cannot be expected to provide “right” answers to the questions stated above. They offer a means for better informing debate in the international community about possible fair distributions of climate finance.

    This is helpful within the Paris Agreement, which requires each country to put forward a self-defined contribution to the global effort. But the agreement has no way of assessing these contributions from an ethical standpoint, despite considerations of fairness lying at the heart of burden-sharing conversations about climate finance.

    It is worth reiterating this approach of applying ethical principles cannot deliver a single, determinate answer because climate finance distributions depend on different interpretations of fairness.

    Nor should it be considered a way of settling debates about countries’ finance burdens, since fair climate finance distributions will continue shifting with time as countries’ circumstances change.

    Ahead of discussions at COP29, exploring possible fair distributions of international climate finance could be helpful for scrutinising the moral adequacy of countries’ future pledges and their actual mobilising of efforts.

    This, in turn, could support more nuanced and informed debate in the international community as nations grapple with ways to fairly address an increasingly urgent, ever-evolving global issue.

    The Conversation

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.
    © 2024 TheConversation, NZCity

     Other National News
     04 Dec: A woman has been charged, after a baby's unexplained death in North Canterbury - in August
     04 Dec: A suggestion from former Black Cap Chris Cairns about which New Zealand's seamers should do what when it come to the Wellington wind in the second test against England
     04 Dec: Chris Hipkins says he's broadly supportive of the changes to Auckland Transport
     04 Dec: Belief the threshold for All Black Sevu Reece's discharge without conviction, would've been high
     04 Dec: Best Books of 2024: our experts share their standout reads
     04 Dec: The best and worst meat replacements for your health, your wallet and the planet – new research
     04 Dec: The Asia Pacific Triennial of Contemporary Art brings us the most exciting and original art of our region
     Top Stories

    RUGBY RUGBY
    Belief the threshold for All Black Sevu Reece's discharge without conviction, would've been high More...


    BUSINESS BUSINESS
    Trademarks that will never be used can be ‘bad faith’ business – a UK case has lessons for NZ and Australia More...



     Today's News

    Entertainment:
    Marissa Bode has slammed the "aggressive comments" and "jokes" made about her 'Wicked' character's disability 13:14

    Business:
    Trademarks that will never be used can be ‘bad faith’ business – a UK case has lessons for NZ and Australia 13:07

    International:
    Distiller explains fine line between brewing safe and deadly spirits in wake of Laos alcohol poisonings 13:07

    Law and Order:
    A man's been charged with murder - over the October death of 56 year old Robert Nattie Albert - at Lake Horowhenua 13:07

    International:
    What is martial law and why did South Korea's president declare it then revoke it hours later? 12:57

    Law and Order:
    A woman has been charged, after a baby's unexplained death in North Canterbury - in August 12:57

    Entertainment:
    Meadow Walker has paid tribute to late father Paul Walker on the 11th anniversary of his passing 12:44

    Politics:
    The Education Minister's released her action plan to deliver Maori students better outcomes 12:27

    Entertainment:
    Eddie Murphy's son Eric Murphy is engaged to Martin Lawrence's daughter Jasmin Lawrence 12:14

    Cricket:
    A suggestion from former Black Cap Chris Cairns about which New Zealand's seamers should do what when it come to the Wellington wind in the second test against England 11:57


     News Search






    Power Search


    © 2024 New Zealand City Ltd