World Climate Conference: Dispute over trillions: UN climate summit is extended

The UN climate conference in Azerbaijan is being extended due to a bitter dispute over trillions in climate aid. At the scheduled end on Friday, after two weeks of negotiations, drafts of final texts were available – but these caused outrage.

The central point of contention is how much financial flows to developing countries will be increased. The presidency suggested that the industrialized countries in particular mobilize 250 billion US dollars annually by 2035 – that would be around 2.5 times more than is currently flowing. However, the demand is also increasing significantly, not to mention the need to compensate for inflation.

Text asks from the perspective of the island states: “How low can you sink?”

The group of island states threatened with extinction reacted in horror: the current text basically asks the parties “How low can you sink?” the countries said. “This is unacceptable.” The estimated amount of aid money will hinder effective climate protection. Climate activists from Fridays for Future therefore spoke of a “sad joke”. Greenpeace’s Germany boss, Martin Kaiser, said: “A forest fire cannot be put out with a garden hose.”

The island states appealed “to the moral conscience of those who see themselves as our partners to stand by us.” Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock negotiated with the island states in the evening, among others, according to delegation circles. However, the Green politician had previously emphasized that you cannot sign “bad checks”.

Dozens of developing countries had vehemently demanded trillions in funding. An independent UN group of experts also comes to the conclusion that the need for external aid is around 1,000 billion US dollars per year by 2030 – and even 1,300 billion by 2035.

Baerbock said that now, like in basketball, “crunch time” is beginning. The minister, who is in poor health, announced that – contrary to what she had announced in the morning – she wanted to stay longer for the negotiations at the climate conference.

“Nobody really responsible”

The overall goal in the five-page draft text is a sum of at least 1.3 trillion dollars, with development banks and private sources of money also playing an important role, as well as other donor countries. Oxfam expert Kowalzig criticized: “Nobody is really responsible for this part of the global goal.”

Climate expert Viviane Raddatz from the development organization WWF said: “It is not clear how much real subsidies and public funds should flow here and how much comes from private sources.” Bill Hare from the ClimateAnalytics think tank pointed out that according to the wording, the target does not have to be achieved until 2035, so it is actually an upper limit, not a lower limit.

The EU, including Germany and other economic powers, had not publicly mentioned or offered any sums during the conference until the last day. The federal government simply said that it was completely unrealistic that trillions of euros in money were now coming from budgets. They appealed to countries like China and the rich Gulf states to also pay in. The problem: According to old UN logic, they are still considered developing countries and therefore recipients of aid.

The cost of doing nothing is significantly higher

Developing countries have been insisting on more aid for years. Their argument: They themselves have contributed almost nothing to the climate crisis, so the rich states of the north must live up to their historical responsibility. Millions are already suffering from the consequences of global warming, especially in the global south. Examples include failed harvests and hunger crises after droughts. Or destruction after storms, forest fires or floods. Experts warn that this can trigger migration flows. And: The costs of doing nothing are tens of times higher and no longer affordable.

Important resolutions from the climate conference in Dubai last year were not included verbatim in the draft text – probably due to pressure from Saudi Arabia, as observers and experts suspect. Specifically, these are three goals: a commitment to moving away from oil, gas and coal, tripling the expansion of renewable energies and doubling energy efficiency by 2030. There is only one reference to this – which from the perspective of the environmental organization Germanwatch is still a solid one resolution and not a step backwards in terms of content.

It would be disappointing for Germany and the EU if these important formulations were not repeated. However, allowing a possible agreement on the issue of money – and thus the entire conference – to fail would also have a high price.

The host as a problem

Germanwatch expert Christoph Bals doubted whether the process is in good hands with the Azerbaijani presidency: “It is not clear to me what game the presidency is playing.”

The ex-Soviet republic, ruled by head of state Ilham Aliyev with an iron-hard hand, hopes to improve its image by hosting the mammoth conference with tens of thousands of participants. But there were critical questions right from the start as to whether a petrostate, 90 percent of whose export revenue comes from oil and gas, could credibly host a climate conference. During the conference it became clear that the presidency has a lot of self-confidence but little ambition. It was obvious to experts that their team was ill-prepared. Negotiators spoke behind closed doors of sometimes chaotic conditions.

Expert report on climate finance