Review of World Affairs

* Final COP 29 Landmark Deal

* The Rise of China

By Shashi P.B.B. Malla

Climate Conference

On the official last day of the climate summit in Baku, Azerbaijan, a second draft agreement finally put a number to crucial climate finance goal for the first time.

With negotiations running right up to the last minute on the final day of talks in Baku, a second draft text has proposed developed countries should provide US Dollar $ 250 billion per year by 2035 for developing countries to take climate action.

The figure was met with deep disappointment from observers from the developing states, who have called on the industrialized nations to provide at least US $ Dollar 1 trillion in funding (Deutsche Welle/ DW, Nov. 22).

“We are really deeply insulted by this proposal,” Lydinyda Nacpil, of the Jubilee South Asia Pacific Movement said.

“Our expectations were low, but this is a slap in the face,” said Mohamed Adow, from Power Shift Africa. “No developing country will fall for this. They [the developed world] have angered and offended the developing world.

The developed nations claimed the proposed amount is more than double the previous goal of US $ Dollar 100 billion per year, which was met two years after the deadline of 2020.

They said the number is the limit of what they are able to mobilize.

“It has been a significant lift over the past decade to meet the prior smaller goal,” a senior US official told DW.

“ US $ Dollar 250 billion will require even more ambition and extraordinary reach. This goal will need to be supported by ambitious bilateral action, multilateral development bank contributions, and other efforts to better mobilize private finance, among other critical factors.”

The new text replaced a first draft published last Thursday that was met with criticism across the board.

Even Wopke Hoekstra, the EU Commissioner for Climate Action told reporters at the conference: “The text as it now stands is clearly unacceptable.”

“There’s not a single ambitious country who thinks this is nearly good enough.”

The first text highlighted the lack of common ground between developing and industrialized countries on the issue of climate finance.

Who should be paying for climate action?

The new text differs from the first draft, which did not specify a number. In that first draft the developing countries called on industrialized nations to commit to an undefined funding goal in the trillions of dollars from 2025 to 2035 “provided and mobilized from developed to all developing countries.”

Industrialized countries also referred to an undefined funding goal in the trillions, saying it should be met by 2035 and include all sources of finance, including domestic resources” implying that developing countries should be, at least in part, paying for changes to deal with climate change themselves.

One of the biggest sticking points throughout the negotiations has been the role of richer developing countries, like China and the Gulf States and whether they should be contributing to finance goals.

“We are eager to make sure that EU countries and others fulfil their responsibilities to deliver climate finance, but [are] also very aware that we’ll need a global effort to mobilize those resources, and it can’t be done by traditional donors alone,” Zinta Zommers, climate science lead at the UN office for the coordination on humanitarian affairs, told DW.

Panama’s Juan Carlos Monterrey Gomez, meanwhile said the lack of commitment felt like a “slap in the face of the most vulnerable,” adding that “developed countries must stop playing with our lives and put a serious quantified financial proposal on the table.”

Transitioning away from fossil fuels

Delegates also voiced concerns that the original text ignored an agreement made last year at COP 28 in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for countries to aim for “transitioning away from all fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner.

“We cannot accept the view that apparently for some the previous COP did not happen,” said Hoekstra. “What we had on our agenda was not just to restate the UAE consensus, but to enhance that and operationalize that.”

Last Minute Deal

Finally, richer countries pledged to give a record US $ Dollar 300 billion to the developing world to help them prepare for and prevent climate change.

The talks at the UN climate summit COP 29 in Azerbaijan ran 33 hours late and came within inches of collapse (BBC, Nov. 24).

The head of the UN climate body, Simon Stiell, said it had “been a difficult journey, but we’ve delivered a deal.”

But the talks failed to build on an agreement passed last year calling for nations to “transit away from fossil fuels.”

Developing nations, as well as countries that are particularly vulnerable to climate change, had dramatically walked out of the talks on Saturday afternoon.

“I am not exaggerating when I say our islands are sinking! How can you expect us to go back to the women, men, and children of our countries with a poor deal? Said the chair of the Alliance of Small Island States, Cedric Schuster (BBC).

But at 03.00 local time on Sunday, and after some changes to the agreement, nations finally passed the deal. It was met with cheers and applause, but a furious speech from an Indian delegate showed that intense frustration remained.

“We cannot accept it…the proposed goal will not solve anything for us. [It is] not conducive to climate action that is necessary to the survival of our country,” Leela Nandan told the conference, calling the final sum too small.

Then nations including Switzerland, Maldives, Canada and Australia protested that the language about reducing global use of fossil fuels was too weak.

Instead, that decision was postponed until the next climate talks in 2025.

The promise of more money is a recognition that poorer nations bear a disproportionate burden from climate change, but also have historically contributed the least to climate change.

The newly-promised money is expected to come from government grants and the private sector – banks and businesses – and should help countries move away from fossil fuel power to using renewable energy.

There was also the commitment to tripling the money that goes towards preparing countries for climate change. Historically, only 40 % percent of the funding available for climate change has gone towards this.

As well as the promise of US $ Dollar 300 billion, nations agreed that US $ Dollar 1.3 trillion is needed by 2035 to also help prevent climate change.

This year – which is now “virtually certain” to be the warmest on record has been punctuated by intense heatwaves and deadly storms.

The opening of the conference on 11 November was dominated by the election of US President Donald Trump, a climate-change sceptic, who will take office on January 20, 2025.

Trump has threatened he will again take the US out of the landmark Paris agreement that in 2015 created a roadmap for nations to tackle climate change.

“For sure it brought the headline number down. The other developed country donors are acutely aware that Trump will not pay a penny and they will have to make up the shortfall,” Prof. Joanna Depledge, an expert on international climate negotiations at Cambridge University, told the BBC.

Reaching this deal is a sign that countries are still committed to working together on climate, but with the largest economy on the planet now unlikely to play a part, it will become harder to meet the multi-billion dollar goal.

“The protracted end game at COP 29 is reflective of the harder geopolitical terrain the world finds itself in. The result is a flawed compromise between donor countries and the most vulnerable nations in the world,” said Li Shuo from the think tank Asia Society Policy Institute.

UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband stressed: “This is a critical eleventh hour deal at the eleventh hour for the climate. It is not everything we or others wanted but it is a step forward for us all.”

In return for promising more money, developed nations including the UK and the European Union (EU) wanted stronger commitments by countries to reduce use of fossil fuels.

Despite their hopes that the agreement struck at the talks in Dubai last year to “transition away from fossil fuels” would be strengthened, the final proposed agreement only repeated it.

For many nations this was not good enough. It will now have to be agreed upon again next year.

Countries that rely on oil and gas exports reportedly put up a strong fight in negotiations to stop further progress.

“The Arab Group will not accept any text that targets specific sectors, including fossil fuels,” Saudi Arabia’s Albara Tawfiq said at an open meeting earlier last week.

Several nations came to the talks with new plans to address climate change in their own countries.

The host nation, Azerbaijan, was a controversial choice for the climate talks. It says it wants to expand gas production by up to a third in the next decade.

Brazil is seen as a better choice to host next year’s climate summit, COP 30, in the city of Belem because President Lula’s strong commitments to climate change and reducing deforestation in the globally important Amazon rainforest.

Exit America, Enter China?

How Beijing can benefit from an isolationist US

Mainstream global opinion since Donald Trump won the US presidential election has been that his administration will bring instability to the world by imposing stiff import tariffs and abandoning America’s role as a security provider.

On Trump’s proposed tariffs, there are two main views. One is that he sees them as a bargaining chip for concessions.

The other is that he is serious about implementing and broadly enforcing his campaign promises.

Experts generally agree that Trump’s focus on tariffs on Chinese goods is genuine (South China Morning Post/SCMP, Nov. 25).

It is generally believed that high tariffs and a withdrawal from providing global security are the two primary paths Trump has laid out to achieve the goal of “Making America Great Again” (MAGA).

Therein lies a significant political and economic opportunity for China.

For a start, Trump cannot aim these two policy thrusts solely at China; that would not help his goal at all.

‘Making America great again’ has its own logic, which is to restore the country as the world’s leading manufacturing power.

Only by protecting its domestic market and acquiring vast external funds can Trump ultimately serve his goal.

The decline of US manufacturing was inevitable, as was loss of its crown as the world’s top industrial power.

This has led to traditional manufacturing towns in the United States suffering from economic decline, unemployment and lower living standards.

Meanwhile, China with its system of centralized governance and low labour costs, successfully developed its modern manufacturing base, becoming a serious economic competitor to the US.

The US ruling elite came to see China, a country with a population of 1.4 billion [the world’s second largest, after India] and governed by the Communist Party, as a significant threat.

America’s historical contributions to the world have mainly been in three areas:

• First, its previously low tariffs gave the world access to its vast market.
• Second, US security assurances and support, including for South Korea, Japan and fellow NATO members, allowed countries to count on US protection while they focused on developing their economies.
• Third, is the US tradition of opening its doors to asylum seekers and immigrants, standing up for human rights and delivering humanitarian aid (SCMP).

Trump, who assumes office in January, will change these dynamics.

America’s abdication as the world’s sole superpower will open up a tremendous diplomatic and economic opportunity for China.

For China, the key to navigating its relations with the US lies in understanding where the points of conflict between Trump and the world exist, and how adept Beijing will be in leveraging third-party negotiations – with the EU, emerging economies and the developing countries. For starters, it will have to abandon its ‘wolf diplomacy’.

The writer can be reached at: shashipbmalla@hotmail