COP27, climate finance: those who have historically issued more pay more

COP27, climate finance: those who have historically issued more pay more

an intuitive notion of justice That is according to which a. who is responsible for Damage have to pay in some way Compensation those who have suffered this loss.

In the case of Climate change Rich countries produced the most emissions He from the pre-industrial era have accumulated in the atmosphere and have to be considered Responsible Of Global warming because of which Climate change,

Poor country Instead they have contributed minimally to generating these historic emissions, but they are also the ones who suffer the most. extreme events Such as floods, heavy rains, drought and heat waves, because they are less equipped from an economic and infrastructural point of view to cope with them. These countries can and should claim compensation who provoked them they Damage and they Loss,

in the dictionary of climate justice recognition of loss and damage There is an important point for activation of (actually loss and harm) climate finance, The criteria according to which compensation should be given should be established by degree of responsibility With which each country has contributed to global warming. that degree of responsibility quantitative In CO. tons of2 produced over the years.

a job released on 7 November From carbon abbreviation count in how much billions of dollars of compensation you should translate it historical responsibility of emissions from each industrialized country.

Historical emissions, country by country

At COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009 it was established that by 2020. 100 billion dollars Countries vulnerable to climate change should be allocated and each industrialized country should contribute proportionately to its historical responsibilities. Those $100 billion per year so far have never really been fully allocated: in 2020 it’s all in 83 billion,

according to aAnalysis updated in October 2021 and that includes greenhouse gas emissions from not only the fossil fuel energy sector but also the agriculture, land use and forestry sectors, 1850 to the present day United States of america he almost released 500 billion tons of CO2either 20% About 2500 billion tons of CO. of2 accumulated in the atmosphere over the past two centuries.

See also  There are 2,183 more COVID-19 cases, with 9 deaths reported Friday in Utah, but the count may be artificially low.

comes second Chinawith’1 1% of historical emissions, while in the final stage of the stage Russiawith 7%, Brazil (5%) and Indonesia (4%) follow, while the first European country, Germany (4%), is in sixth place, followed by India (4%) and the United Kingdom (3%). Complete Africa continent responsible about 3% historical emissions, while North America, Europe And Asia they are completely responsible each of about 30% of historical emissions

countries like China And thisIndia However, they generated most of their emissions only from the late 20th century and are still considered formally developing countries From United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,

Instead, they are developed or industrialized countries According to the United Nations Convention, one has a legal obligation towards the activism of climate finance, If you limit the area to these countries rich because it seems that United States of america are responsible for the surrounding half of emissions of this small group.

who paid and how much

Calculations by Carbon Brief build on these assumptions and show that adjusting for contributions coming from personal finance, those famous $100 billion a year America they should contribute approx 40 billion dollars, Of the 83 billion to come in 2020, the US only allocated it 7.6 Arabsabout 19% than historical responsibility.

There is no official data on contributions paid by each country in 2020 (only a total figure of 83 billion), but according to how much does it rebuild carbon brief, Canada In 2020 it only gave 37% As much as it should have paid: about 2 billion instead of about 5.5. Ale’Australia only provided 38% Keeping about $1.7 billion in his pocket, he would have to pay about $3 billion. United Kingdom paid about 75%Of the 5.5 billion, about 4 is owed, up from $1.4 billion.

There were countries in 2020 that would have contributed to climate finance beyond their historical responsibilities. There Swiss For example he paid more than 4 times The figure in proportion to its national emissions: $0.7 billion more from arrears. Norway And France He has contributed a figure that is more than 3 times More than a proportion of its national emissions: 0.6 billion Plus in the case of Norway, well 6.6 billion More so in the case of France.

Japan And Holland they have paid more than double than they should have: respectively 7.5 And 1.4 billion More. Me too’Italy In 2020 it outperformed its essential historical responsibilities, paid approx half and What is owed: 0.8 billion More.

However, as Carbon Brief outlines,clear generosity Comes to the highest paying countries shape change from the fact that most of their money was allocated as LoanWhile one of the major demands of vulnerable countries is that climate finance come in the form of Grantprecisely because of the principle by which they serve repair or reinstall For loss and damage Because of climate change caused by industrialized countries.

For example, there are loans86% of funds allocated by JapanThe 75% Compared to Franceabout half Compared to Germany, instead they are only 3% allotted by Swiss,

Finally, it should be remembered that the work of the Carbon Brief is done on a scale $100 billion per year which, although they have not yet been achieved, are already insufficient To meet the real challenges of adapting and repairing the damage already caused by climate change in vulnerable countries. Funds needed for loss and damage already be around $380 billion annual, while mitigation and adaptation by 2030 should reach approx. 2 trillion dollarsaccording to a recent study,

The work of Carbon Brief also recalls that carbon dioxide budget ,carbon budget) with which we can still play is expiring. As per the report of IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) everyone 1000 billion tons of CO2 Accumulated in the atmosphere corresponds to an increase of approx. 0.45 °C from the temperature of the planet. From the pre-industrial era to the present day we have issued approximately 2500 billion tons of CO2 And the temperature has already risen almost in the last 2 centuries 1.2 °C, with the issue of another 500 billion CO. tons of2 the planet will warm 1.5 °CThe threshold set by the Paris Agreements beyond which we will not have to go.

In recent years we have produced globally approx. 50 billion tonnes of emissions per year, If we don’t reduce them, a end of decade We will find ourselves close to the threshold of global warming that we should have reached the maximum end of century, It is not ecological rhetoric to say that now is not the time and we must act now. And now it is during Cop27.

So far, funds allocated to vulnerable countries have been exhausted under the heads “adaptation” and “mitigation”. First time on this Cop27 Looks like it will be recognized The need to compensate for damages and losses (loss and damageDue to fire, drought, flood. There Scotland Sharm el-Sheikh was the first country to announce an allocation of $5.7 million for a dedicated fund. loss and damagebringing the Scottish contribution to 7.7 million.Irelandwith 10 million,Austria with 50 million, Belgium With 2.5 million. There Denmark had already announced an allocation of $13 million for the same purpose, while Germany It seems willing to put 170 million on the table.

“We have reached a point where the urgency to adapt and adapt has been reduced from the need of management to loss and damage that we are already suffering” Cleopas Dlamini, Prime Minister ofevangelical, a small state bordering South Africa. If Cop27 makes an agreement on the creation of a fund among all industrialized countries loss and damage However, it still remains to be seen. “I’d like to say yes, but really I don’t,” he said. nicola sturgeon, the first Scottish minister. “But I think it’s very important that we go out with these two weeks something solid“It would be a refusal to help the most vulnerable nations a moral failure For the West, he said.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here