

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Failing to address climate change is a failure for our planet and for humanity. Why pay trillions in disaster relief, conflict mitigation, aid, and migration management when the solutions are at our feet today?
Climate change is now the single biggest health threat facing humanity. The Emergency Events Database reports a record rise in natural disasters globally since the 1960s, detailing over 26,000 mass disasters. The number of reported extreme weather incidents increased from 39 in 1960 to 399 in 2023.
According to the World Economic Forum, climate-related weather disasters will cost the global economy over $2 trillion annually by 2030, with costs escalating dramatically to an estimated $38 trillion per year by 2050, according to the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK).
Since the Industrial Revolution, global economies have been built around the fossil fuel industry. In 2025, the global oil and gas industry's revenue was estimated at $4 trillion. Despite all the devastating warnings, we are still failing to meet almost every target aimed at curbing emissions.
The burning of fossil fuels comes at a massive price for people, the planet, and our economies. Not only are we spending exorbitant amounts on climate damage, but we are also paying more than ever at the pump and on our energy bills.
Policymakers and world leaders need to start thinking longer term and take steps to prevent the huge economic losses from climate disasters in the first place.
As the US-Israeli war on Iran rages, prices are set to rise further. Targeted attacks on energy facilities have all but closed the Strait of Hormuz, a shipping lane which facilitates the transportation of 20% of global oil and gas supply. The price of crude oil is already 20% higher than it was before the first strikes on Iran on February 28.
Despite the known fact that adaptation is far cheaper than inaction, politicians continue to sit on their hands. Meanwhile, they continue to subsidize the fossil fuel industry, fail to adequately invest in the energy transition, and pass the costs of climate change on to taxpayers.
In the last two full years alone, global economic damages reached $451 billion—a 19% increase compared to the previous eight years. An amount significantly more than that needed to close the global climate adaptation gap.
"Climate change will cause massive economic damages within the next 25 years in almost all countries... We have to cut down our emissions drastically and immediately—if not, economic losses will become even bigger in the second half of the century, amounting to up to 60% on global average by 2100," says Leonie Wenz, a scientist at PIK.

Climate change is not a future problem; it is affecting each and every one of us today.
According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, climate change costs the world 12% in gross domestic product (GDP) losses for every 1°C of warming. This puts the social cost of carbon at around $1,056 per metric ton of carbon dioxide emissions. The report predicts that by the "end of the century, people may well be 50% poorer than they would've been if it wasn't for climate change."
Heatwaves, wildfires, droughts, and storms cost the world more than $120 billion in 2025 alone as 55 billion-dollar weather disasters pounded the Earth. The US bore the brunt with the devastating Californian wildfires, which caused $60 billion of damage and led to the deaths of more than 400 people.
No continent, however, was spared from crippling climate disasters in 2025. It was also noted that disasters are becoming increasingly expensive and their impact underestimated. The Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (GAR) 2025 estimates the annual cost of weather disasters at $202 billion. When other impacts, such as ecosystem costs, are taken into account, the true cost is likely to exceed $2.3 trillion.
Some of the most damaging climate events in 2025 hit poorer nations, including the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam. These countries have historically contributed little to the climate crisis, have the fewest resources to respond, and are often on the front lines of climate disasters.

"On climate finance, the world must pay up, or humanity will pay the price... Climate finance is not charity, it's an investment; climate action is not optional, it's imperative."—António Guterres, United Nations secretary-general.
In relation to the climate crisis, the Polluter Pays Principle states that those who have historically contributed the most to greenhouse gas emissions should bear the costs of repairing the damages caused and adaptation measures. It also acts as a deterrent to end massive investment and subsidies into the fossil fuel industry and instead promotes the development and integration of clean energy sources.
The Loss and Damage fund was created at COP27, the 2022 climate conference. This fund is to compensate developing countries for losses and damages (L&Ds) from natural disasters caused by climate change, for which wealthy countries are disproportionately responsible. It was hailed as a major milestone at the time, but financial commitments have fallen well short of the $400 billion needed annually to address L&Ds and climate injustices adequately.
Over the past four decades, the costs of wildfires, storms, hurricanes, droughts, and floods have spiraled. These disasters have become more frequent and far more severe. The cost of all disasters between 1985 and 1995 was $299 billion. Yet the same figure for between 2014 and 2025 was $1.4 trillion.
Below, we list the five most costly disasters over the last three decades. The figures provided are estimates, and likely the true cost was much higher. They are adjusted for inflation and, of course, do not include the social costs, such as the devastating human toll, the health crises that follow, the psychological impact, massive displacement, ecosystem destruction, resource depletion, habitat loss, and agricultural fallout.

Climate adaptation is the process of adjusting to the impacts of climate change to reduce damage, prevent loss of life, and protect people and infrastructure before disaster strikes. It also includes reducing global carbon emissions by transitioning to clean energy to prevent climate change from worsening even further.
Adaptation requires upfront investment, but it is far more cost-effective than inaction, which allows the climate crisis to escalate, causing irreversible damage and out-of-control social and environmental costs.
Examples of adaptation measures include flood defences, the creation of urban wetlands, drought-resistant crops and climate resilient agriculture, ecosystem restoration and conservation, and investment in early warning systems.
There is a huge funding gap in climate adaptation, and the longer governments postpone, the greater the need and the higher the costs become. Annual estimates for developing countries alone range from $215 to $387 billion.
Once we reach 2°C of warming, the global annual cost to protect everyone exposed to climate hazards will reach $1.2 trillion, equivalent to almost 1% of GDP. Heat and drought are the most pressing challenges, with more than three-quarters of adaptation funding needed to provide adequate protection.
Estimates indicate that the benefits of adaptation exceed the upfront costs by a factor of seven. Policymakers and world leaders need to start thinking longer term and take steps to prevent the huge economic losses from climate disasters in the first place.
Adaptation investments also have wider secondary benefits such as improved health and social welfare, a more resilient agricultural sector, stable levels of biodiversity, lower levels of migration and conflict, and reduced inequalities.
The 2019 Global Commission on Adaptation Report found that every $1 invested in adaptation can generate up to $7.1 trillion in total benefits globally by avoiding damages and building social and environmental value.

Climate inaction is already leading to massive economic losses from extreme weather. The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies' 2019 Cost of Doing Nothing report estimates that those in need of annual international humanitarian assistance for climate-related disasters could double to over 200 million by 2050, costing an additional $20 billion annually.
The Climate Policy Initiative estimates the financial cost of inaction to be $1,266 trillion. The social cost is much higher:
The two-year Global Stocktake for the Paris Agreement at COP28 confirmed that we are way off track from the targeted 1.5°C target. The window for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and specific climate goals is rapidly closing.
If governments won't act on climate change for people or the planet, they should at least be motivated by the trillions it will cost them if they continue to do nothing.
Failing to address climate change is a failure for our planet and for humanity. Why pay trillions in disaster relief, conflict mitigation, aid, and migration management when the solutions are at our feet today?
As the Climate Policy Initiative says, "The longer our home remains aflame, the harder and more expensive it will be to extinguish the fire and repair the damage."
We must demand a new comprehensive legal framework for climate refugees to safeguard vulnerable populations and protect those who may be at risk in the future.
The consequences of our planet's changing climate extend far beyond warming temperatures, rising sea levels, and extreme weather events. Human displacement as a result of the climate crisis is now one of the world's most pressing issues, as estimates predict that there could be more than 1 billion climate refugees by 2050.
The plight of these people is neglected and forgotten as they remain unprotected by the law and are excluded from international aid programs.
Climate refugees are forced to flee their homes as the environment degrades and climate-related disasters take hold. Climate change is now one of the leading causes of mass forced displacement.
Climate change is also increasing rates of poverty, instability, and violence—further drivers of migration.
Climate migrants remain in a murky legal space that neither recognizes nor protects them. In fact, the term is not recognized at all in international law.
Those on the front lines of climate change are often in countries that contributed the least to it. The vast majority of climate migration is internal, which puts an unsustainable strain on the already limited resources of these nations.
"When people are driven out because their local environment has become uninhabitable, it might look like a process of nature, something inevitable... Yet the deteriorating climate is very often the result of poor choices and destructive activity, of selfishness and neglect," said Pope Francis.

Climate migrants remain in a murky legal space that neither recognizes nor protects them. In fact, the term is not recognized at all in international law.
The Refugee Convention, which entered into force in 1954, was established to protect those who had fled persecution from the atrocities of World War II. Its protections extend only to those who must leave their home countries due to war, violence, conflict, or any other kind of maltreatment. It also does not protect those who have been displaced in their own countries.
As the vast majority of climate refugees are not crossing borders nor fleeing violence, their status is outside of the convention's reach. These facts do not mean that these people are less in need of assistance or that their lives are not equally in danger, yet the law overlooks their plight.
Climate migration is a form of adaptation. We can build new pathways for safe and regular migration.
Refugee advocates are pushing for an expansion to the convention to include the rights of those forced to move due to environmental factors, but have met with significant political pushback. Critics argue it would lead to the weakening of protection for those experiencing serious persecution. The difficulty in proving the causal factors of climate migration is a further barrier.
The 1998 Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement help bridge the gap in protecting climate refugees; however, its nonbinding nature limits its practical effect and gives it no legal force. It also does not protect those who must cross borders.
The Global Compact for Migration was adopted in 2018. It was the first United Nations framework on international migration. For the first time, climate change was officially recognized as a driver of migration, but it still does not grant legal protection for climate refugees. Instead, the compact promotes safe, orderly pathways for migrants, including planned relocation, visa options, and humanitarian shelter.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is both the process and the treaty that help countries mitigate the causes and consequences of the climate crisis. It was signed by 154 countries in 1992. Climate migrants aren't explicitly protected by the UNFCCC.
As it stands, although some countries have enacted domestic laws that provide temporary protection for climate refugees, the lack of recognition under the Refugee Convention means there is still no international, legally binding mechanism for them.
Countries are reluctant to sign up to yet another agreement, especially as it may make them responsible for climate migrants who arrive at their borders and promote larger migrant influxes to favored countries. There are many political obstacles which ultimately exacerbate the humanitarian needs of millions.
We must begin to address internal climate displacement in the most vulnerable countries. Tackling the issue at its root is imperative, and the nations historically responsible for the damage must be made to pay.
Climate migration is a form of adaptation. We can build new pathways for safe and regular migration.
The Loss and Damage Fund was established in 2022 at COP27 to address the financial needs of communities severely impacted by climate change. The money would support rehabilitation, recovery, and human mobility. While a brilliant initiative, as of late 2025, rich nations have delivered less than half of what they initially committed to the fund.

The climate justice movement recognizes that climate change disproportionately affects marginalized and vulnerable communities. It demands that the Global North, which has massive historical accountability, should bear the burden of the solutions. The movement brings social justice, racial justice, human rights, and economic equality into the climate debate.
In July 2025, years of activism by a bold group of law students from the University of the South Pacific paid off. The Vanuatu ICJ Initiative spearheaded legal action that led to a historic advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
The following was adopted unanimously by all 15 judges: Nations have a legal duty to combat the planetary crisis.
The ICJ has, for the first time, officially categorized the climate crisis as an "urgent and existential threat" and emphasized that "cooperation is not a matter of choice for states but a pressing need and a legal obligation." The ICJ opinion can now be used to demand more ambitious climate protection measures, to ensure compliance with the Paris Agreement, to implement national and international climate laws, and potentially to help protect climate migrants.
The initiative also highlighted the vulnerability of small island nations and demonstrated that collective action and legal accountability are essential tools on the journey to justice and sustainable development.
Any justice for climate-induced migration must be human-rights focused. Humanitarian visas, temporary protection, authorization to stay, and bilateral free movement agreements would all help to ease the suffering of those forced to leave their homes.

"When we refugees are excluded, our voices are silenced, our experiences go unheard, and the reality of the climate situation in the Global South is blurred" says Ugandan climate justice activist Ayebare Denise.
Climate migrants have remained invisible in climate and migration debates for years. The International Organisation for Migration have been working hard to bring climatic and environmental factors into the spotlight. They are establishing a body of evidence that will definitively prove that climate change, both directly and indirectly, affects human mobility.
The UN Refugee Agency advocates for states' responsibilities and obligations to address the migration crisis caused by climate change. They view climate change as a threat multiplier and are working toward protection frameworks.
Countries must begin cooperating on this global issue and ensure the fair treatment of all refugees.
The debate over establishing a climate refugee status is ongoing, and while a legal definition would be helpful, it would be only a partial solution. The vast majority of climate migrants do not want to leave their homes, their livelihoods, or their communities. Admittedly, this is no easy feat, but we must fix the root of the problem—climate change itself.
Without urgent action, we are all at risk of becoming climate refugees.
While working to address immediate needs, climate discussions should continue to focus on preventive measures. Climate mitigation, adaptation, and a just energy transition are essential.
Countries must begin cooperating on this global issue and ensure the fair treatment of all refugees. We must demand a new comprehensive legal framework for climate refugees to safeguard vulnerable populations and protect those who may be at risk in the future.
Supporting climate refugees is our moral obligation.
After Baku, I see a way forward, one in which we open the strategic lens, not by talking less about the injustice of the North/South world, but by talking more about the injustices of the rich/poor world.
I have for decades been assuring both colleagues and comrades that the climate negotiations are not a sick joke, that “COP” is not short for “Conference of Polluters,” that the negotiations matter. The argument has become easier to make as more people have come to see the implacable necessity of an international way forward. As imperfect as the COP process is, a world without multilateral climate negotiations would be far worse.
Still, there comes a time, amid the floods and the firestorms, when even the practiced realism of seasoned observers must break down. This time didn’t quite come at COP29, though it came close. As Martin Wolf put it in the Financial Times, “the assessment has to lie between failure and disaster—failure, because progress is still possible, or disaster, because a good agreement will now be too late.”
The climate problem demands an earnest and cooperative international response, but Baku instead saw the Global North present the Global South with a “grim ultimatum”—agree to an inadequate offer of support or risk the collapse of the only international process where it has significant voice and influence. By its end, the Global South had been forced to accede. With the clap of the president’s gavel, and despite a broad push to assert that “no deal is better than a bad deal,” it got a very bad deal indeed.
COP29 really did have a silver lining. It focused the climate finance debate and pushed it to center stage.
There was also action on the emissions trading front, where the rules were finally nailed down. But the rules are pretty bad and the deal is more likely to generate a flood of illusory offsets than a flood of quality investment. Also, and importantly, neither carbon trading in particular nor private finance in general can honestly be expected to entirely finance a successful climate transition.
On the public finance side, the pressure to relitigate the Baku deal, already high, can only increase. The last-minute adoption of the “Baku to Belém Roadmap to $1.3 trillion”—a critical commitment to find a real path forward—is likely to define the COP30 agenda. The problem is that, barring an unanticipated political shift of the first order, the Belém COP, too, will fail to rise to the occasion.
The next year is going to be a big one.
Hope, as always, remains. The future is unwritten; we have the technology to save ourselves, and we may yet decide to do so. Also, there’s plenty of money, though like the future it is not evenly distributed. Further, COP29 really did have a silver lining. It focused the climate finance debate and pushed it to center stage. There is now, finally, a deep and widespread understanding of the nature and scale of the international climate finance challenge. Talk today about planetary-scale climate ambition and you’re talking in terms of trillions of dollars a year, and everyone knows it.
Unfortunately, this also means the climate negotiations are now in crisis, because those necessary trillions are not on the table. The Baku agreement is simply not going to give the world’s developing countries the confidence—read “the support”—they need to table a strong new round of climate action pledges in 2025. And, as 1.5°C slips through our fingers, it is becoming ever more difficult to believe that even the weak end of the Paris temperature goal (“well below 2°C”) is slated to be preserved.
Part of the problem at Baku was of course the pall cast by Donald Trump’s reelection. Even negotiators who bitterly resent the traditional U.S. tactics knew that something worse was in the future. Just as importantly, it was no longer possible to imagine that the United States, with its massive share of the world’s capacity, would soon produce any significant fraction of its fair share of the cost of rapid international climate mobilization. The Europeans, certainly, could easily argue that, without the United States on board, no adequately ambitious public finance goal could possibly be met, and that, therefore, they could not possibly acquiesce to one.
But Trump’s importance can be overstated. The Europeans have long hidden behind American intransigence, which was a problem long before the age of Trump. The United States has for years worked to eradicate the United Nations climate framework convention’s foundational commitment to equitable burden-sharing based on “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities,” and the Europeans have never roused themselves to object in any effective way.
And, as always, there is the problem of the fossil fuel industry, which cannot be reduced to the problem of the United States, or even the problem of the Global North. The Saudis in particular, with the aid of the Azeri hosts, reportedly did everything in their power to prevent any Baku statement from reiterating COP28’s call for “transitioning away” from fossil fuels. Further, it became clear in Baku that, as Laurie can der Berg of Oil Change International astutely commented, many rich countries are actively planning for fossil fuel phaseout failure.
That planning began long before Trump’s reelection.
There are many issues entwined within the climate negotiations, and across the board their resolution has been blocked by the lack of adequate climate finance. Inevitably, given that Baku was the long anticipated “finance COP,” it was fated to play a very special role. Given the widespread anger occasioned by Baku’s weak outcome, it’s safe to say that it didn’t deliver.
Still, the climate negotiations are not doomed. It is better to say they are now visibly in a crisis they’ve been in for years. But the distinction makes a difference, and the timing could not be more critical. Unless substantial progress is made by the end of COP30, by November 21, 2025, in Belém, Brazil, we’re going to be in extremely serious trouble.
By the opening of COP29, the Global South’s negotiators had settled on a demand for $1.3 trillion a year in climate finance, much of it to be provided by the developed countries as non-debt-producing grant-based public finance and the rest of it mobilized via facilitated investments. The size of former amount—the “public finance core” that would be provided—was not universally agreed upon, but agreement was close. The G77 + China negotiating bloc cohered around the figure of $500 billion a year, though a number of negotiators and activists, the Climate Action Network in particular, supported a much larger figure. As for the $1.3 trillion, this would be built upon the core, by layering on investments that were mobilized in one way or another.
Baku saw the agreement of a “new collective quantified goal on climate finance,” which replaces 2009’s old finance goal of $100 billion a year, with a new goal that is nominally $300 billion a year. This sounds like a tripling, but it’s not. As for the $1.3 trillion, look to the future negotiation of the “Baku to Belém Roadmap to $1.3 trillion” and prepare for a fight.
Start with the $300 billion, and its comparison to the old goal of $100 billion. The first thing to note here is that the old goal took years to reach, if it was reached at all. The $100 billion line was finally crossed via a finance package that was 70% loans, many of them non-concessional (market rate) loans that significantly swelled recipient countries’ debt loads. The second is that the Baku promise doesn’t have to be delivered until 2035—which, given the climate emergency, is an eternity—and that during that eternity inflation will have eaten deeply into its value.
Stabilizing the climate quickly enough to prevent global catastrophe is going to be expensive, but that we nonetheless have the money to do so. Or, more precisely, the global rich have the money.
Also, and even more crucially, this nominal $300 billion is absolutely not a “public finance core” that will be met exclusively via grant-based financing. It will rather come “from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources,” which is to say that the $300 billion (or whatever is left after inflation) will include not only funding provided by the developed nations, but also any private investment this public funding manages to “crowd in,” and loans both market rate and concessional, and even carbon-offset revenues.
To say this outcome is disappointing is to put the matter diplomatically. As Action Aid’s Brandon Wu explains, “There’s no clarity about how much if any of [the $300 billion] will be public, grant and grant-equivalent finance; it could be loans; it could all be private investment; it could all be MDB [Multilateral Development Bank] finance, it could all amount to basically nothing, in fact.” No wonder that during the final plenary, immediately after the decision text was suddenly gaveled through (the delay was 1.04 seconds, according to the Financial Times), Indian delegate Chandni Raina called the finance target “too little, too distant,” and said her country could not support it. “This document is nothing more than an optical illusion,” she said to cheers and applause.
What does the Global South need to rapidly decarbonize, while at the same time pursuing a low-carbon development path? There will never be a single correct answer to this supremely difficult question, for no possible answer is free of political and ethical claims, including claims about development and about the even more fundamental and elusive notion of need.
Needs assessments are possible, but assessing the needs associated with planetary climate stabilization—from mitigation needs to loss and damage needs to just transition needs—is extremely difficult, and costing such needs with any real precision is flat-out impossible. However meticulous a needs assessment process is, it can only be provisional, because the “real” bottom line will depend on how quickly and brutally the impacts of climate change unfold, and how decisively humanity mobilizes to contain them, and how much obstruction the fossil fuel industry erects against this mobilization, and how forgiving the overall climate system turns out to be. None of this is knowable in advance, though the total need is certainly larger than $1.3 trillion.
We do, however, have some useful preliminary estimates.
Most prominently, the “High Level Experts Group,” which has been supporting the U.N. climate finance debate since COP26, does not simply defend the $1.3 trillion figure. It also tells us this is not the end of the story, that total ”projected investment requirement for climate action” would be about $6.3-6.7 trillion per year by 2030, an amount that should be roughly divided between “advanced economies,” China, and other nations. Of this, about $2.3-2.5 trillion would be for emerging and developing countries other than China, and this figure would increase to $3.1-3.5 trillion by 2035.
Also notable is the updated Needs Determination Report recently released by the UNFCCC’s Standing Committee on Finance. It pegs “the costed needs” from the latest pledges at $5-7 trillion cumulatively out to 2030, a figure which it annualizes (over the 2020 to 2030 period) as $455 billion to $585 billion a year. This, however, is a very partial calculation, and larger estimates can be found within the same report.
In all this complexity, one text is particularly useful, the “submission” that the Climate Action Network’s Finance Working Group made to the pre-COP29 negotiations. This submission advocates a “public finance core” of $1 trillion a year, and then situates that core within a much “wider mobilization goal” that reflects “historic legacies and ongoing practices of unfair atmospheric carbon budget appropriation,” among other inconvenient realities. Also, the text anchors its $1 trillion headline ask in three key subgoals, and reviews the (still primitive) needs assessment literature to conclude that “developing countries’ international climate finance needs could be at least $400bn for loss and damage, at least $300bn for adaptation, and at least $300bn for mitigation, measured in grant-equivalent terms.”
Annually, of course.
Let’s take this $1 trillion annual figure, stipulate again that it refers to a public finance core that must come as grants or grant-equivalents, add that this finance is needed immediately, not 2035, and note that—unlike the miserable sums gaveled through in Baku—its provision would be a game changer. Not that $1 trillion a year in core public finance would be enough, not as the equatorial regions of the planet dry and people begin to migrate in real numbers, but it would suffice to establish, or at least allow, robust levels of international trust and cooperation. It would really get things moving.
Where would this kind of money come from? A group of us took up this question in the 2024 Civil Society Equity Review, which was entitled Fair Shares, Finance, Transformation: Fair Shares Assessment, Equitable Fossil Fuel Phaseout, and Public Finance for Just Global Climate Stabilization. Unlike this brief essay, it is long enough to treat the finance challenge in meaningful detail. Its key message is that stabilizing the climate quickly enough to prevent global catastrophe is going to be expensive, but that we nonetheless have the money to do so. Or, more precisely, the global rich have the money, and—one way or another—they’re going to have to pay, as per Foreign Policy’s rather inelegant formulation, to “help fix the planet.”
The Equity Review group is not alone in making this case. But Fair Shares, Finance, Transformation is notable for the deliberate manner in which it lays out the path forward, the way it names and quantifies the barriers to decarbonization, and its careful, explicit distinction between finance sources that are immediately available—or would be, given political and economic reforms—and more fundamental transformations that will require deeper system change.
Strategically, the key issue is the finance sources that are immediately available, so here’s a very quick summary. (See Fair Shares, Finance, Transformation for details and footnotes, and for a discussion of the larger context, which includes the need for deeper and more fundamental changes.)
The place to begin is fossil fuel subsidies. These represent a public finance flow that could be quickly redirected to support the climate transition. This flow can be expressed as either direct public support or “total” subsidies. The former, according to Energy Policy Tracker, reached a record high of $1.7 trillion in 2022, a figure that represents “public financial support for fossil fuels, in the form of subsidies, investments by state-owned enterprises, and lending from public financial institutions.” The latter, according to the International Monetary Fund (no hotbed of green socialism), takes a more expansive view of subsidies that includes “undercharging for global warming and local air pollution” and estimates total fossil fuel subsidies at $7 trillion a year.
There are also targeted financial mechanisms already at hand. For example, a reinvention of the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights, which after decades of discussion is only now getting real attention, could very rapidly yield $500 billion in concessional loans, while financial transaction taxes, even at low tax rates, would yield considerable revenues. One proposal calls for a levy of 0.05% to be applied to various domestic and international financial transactions involving stocks, bonds, and currency. In 2011, the estimated revenues for such a tax was $600 to $700 billion; at today’s volume of financial transactions, it could easily raise more than $1 trillion.
Whatever happens, pollution taxes are fundamental. First up are frequent flier taxes, which could yield $150 billion a year, and maritime levies, which could bring in $100 billion more. And when we’re ready to tax pollution directly, all sorts of doors would open. Special attention should go to the proposal for a Climate Damages Tax, which could raise $900 billion by 2030 by taxing fossil fuel extraction in the OECD countries. Eighty percent of this, $720 billion, would go to the Loss and Damage Fund, while the rest would be reserved to support the action in the countries where the tax is imposed. The alternative to such an extraction levy is to more heavily tax fossil fuel companies’ profits. The five oil supermajors alone (ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, TotalEnergies, and BP) made over $120 billion of profits in 2023.
Wealth taxes are increasingly central to the finance debate. Exhibit A is the Blueprint for a Coordinated Taxation Standard for Ultra-high-net-worth Individuals commissioned by the Brazilian G20 presidency and prepared by economist Gabriel Zucman. This proposal is notable for its links to Brazil, the COP30 host, and for the precise way it aims to remedy problems with tax systems that rely on income taxes that fail to effectively tax the super-rich. “Let’s agree that billionaires should pay income taxes equivalent to a small portion—say, 2%—of their wealth each year… In total, the proposal would allow countries to collect an estimated $250 billion in additional tax revenue per year.”
Another approach is to cast a wider net, and go straight to a system of globally harmonized national wealth taxes. This approach is exemplified by a recent proposal from the Tax Justice Network for an “international version of Spain’s ‘featherlight’ progressive wealth tax.” Spain’s tax applies a tax of 1.7- 3.5% to the richest 0.5% of the country’s households, a group of about 26.5 million people. If adopted by nations around the world, it would raise about $2.1 trillion a year. The decisive move here is to erase the unfair distinction between “earned wealth” like salaries and “unearned wealth” like dividends, capital gains, and rents, which is obtained by simply owning things and is typically taxed at far lower rates than earned wealth. This erasure would yield so much revenue because the richest 0.5% own a quarter (25.7%) of all wealth.
Finally, there is military spending, the gold standard of wasted economic potential. Military spending diverts massive streams of resources that could be used to stabilize the climate and build the infrastructure of a sustainable world. The wealthiest nations, those in the UNFCCC’s Annex II, are, according to research by the Transnational Institute, “spending 30 times as much on their armed forces as they spend on providing climate finance for the world’s most vulnerable countries.” The United States is responsible for a huge chunk of that military spending, with an official 2025 military budget of $852 billion, but other countries are by no means innocent. China holds second place, with a military budget now estimated at $296 billion a year. Throughout the world, even very poor countries burn significant fractions of their public moneys on the military sector, to the obvious detriment of climate transformation and the well-being of their populations. When added together, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, global military expenditure surged in 2023 to $2.4 trillion, the highest level ever recorded.
There are two takeaways from all this. The first is that there is plenty of money to stabilize the climate system, and to do so well and fairly. The second is that there are plenty of ideas for how to redirect money to the climate transition. The above list is anything but exhaustive, and the best way forward is probably to combine multiple ideas into one flexible, expansive program. Action Aid, in Finding the Finance, put this well, arguing that the way forward is “taking coordinated action globally to introduce a range of new taxes that could raise trillions of U.S. dollars—such as through windfall taxes, wealth taxes, higher tax rates on the income of the top 1%, financial transaction taxes, a range of carbon and climate damage taxes, and taxes on aviation and shipping.”
This may sound defeatist, but it’s time to seriously consider the possibility that there will be no finance breakthrough, that neither the $300 billion that was promised in Baku nor the far larger sum that would allow us to plan an inclusive and civilized transition to a post-carbon world will ever arrive.
This would not be a surprise. Nor would the consequent anger and outrage and bitterness be in any way unexpected, or even unwelcome. But, having said this, is it permissible to wonder if they would suffice? The question is necessary after Baku, which followed Dubai’s call to “transition away” from fossil fuels. Baku should by all rights have marked a deepening of that effort, but instead the fossil fuel industry, led by the Saudis, was able to leverage the more-than-justified frustration and bitterness of the Global South to ensure that the Dubai call was not even reiterated.
What’s the lesson here? The best answer may simply be that, even as we fight for finance, we have to remember that finance isn’t everything, and that it’s dangerous to believe it is. It is not even exactly the case that finance is a precondition of rapid decarbonization. The truth is rather that economic and developmental justice is a precondition of rapid decarbonization, and that we are being forced by our strange times and dire circumstances to take international finance as a proxy for justice. In some cases—the fossil phaseout comes to mind—we would be better off insisting on the real thing.
Baku cast a bright and unforgiving light on the political vise within which we are trapped. On the one hand we’re out of time, and mitigation—decarbonization—must be our top priority. On the other hand, rapid decarbonization is simply not going to be possible without a great deal of economic justice. Think of the Global South’s overwhelming international debt, which can never be repaid. Think of the massively unbalanced and unsustainable international trading system. Think of the planetary divide between the rich and the poor, and how the rich exploit it at every turn.
Even if, as many believe, decarbonization is the essential core of the climate challenge, it is difficult, amidst today’s crumbling political order, to believe that any sufficiently rapid climate stabilization is possible in a world where adaptation, loss and damage, and just transition challenges—all of them pillars of the solidarity agenda—are left almost entirely unfunded. Yet that is exactly where we are today.
Again, there is plenty of money. The question is how to convert some of it—say, a trillion dollars a year—into grant-based public finance, so that it can be used to provision not only an accelerated mitigation effort, but also the equity agenda—the solidarity agenda and the fair-share agenda—that will have to accompany it. It’s a more than challenging prospect, particularly given that the finance battle must be fought, and won, among the rich, most of whom reside in the Global North, which is currently beset by an exterminist strain of right-wing nationalist populism.
The Washington Post frankly reported that Baku was “blasted” by the negotiators and activists of the Global South. Then it found space for this:
Taxpayers in wealthy countries will ultimately foot much of the bill for the finance deal. Negotiators from rich nations had to consider the possibility of voters’ resistance to a high amount, especially in the European Union, where farmers have held recent protests against climate regulations, and the United States, where Trump could refuse to send more climate aid overseas.
In an email, Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas), who led a delegation of House lawmakers to COP29, called the final agreement a “horrible deal.”
“China, the world’s largest polluter, self-identifies as a ‘developing country,’” Pfluger said. “The last thing we need is to be shackled by another harmful, America-last climate pipe dream.”
There’s the problem, and the misery, right there.
Baku can be read—and is being read, within the climate left—as a final repudiation, by the rich countries, of the obligation to do their fair share they took on when they signed the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. I can see the logic here, but I don’t think it’s quite right. The equity battle is anything but over, and it cannot be plausibly repudiated. But the equity battle will also not be won in strict North/South terms.
Looking back over financing options sketched above, I see a way forward, one in which we open the strategic lens, not by talking less about the injustice of the North/South world, but by talking more about the injustices of the rich/poor world. Think, if you will, of the “Baku to Belém Roadmap to $1.3 trillion,” and the challenge to contrive an effective campaign strategy around it. Think, in particular, about the spectrum defined by pollution and extraction taxes on one side, and wealth taxes on the other, which the Climate Tax Justice groups have taken to calling “solidarity levies.” Think about the fact that both pollution taxes and wealth tax are essential, and that they can be imposed nationally and harmonized globally.
The Global South needs real climate finance, and plenty of it. But what if, instead of continuing to insist that this finance will eventually come from the Global North, we admit that there’s only one place to get it: from the global rich. While most of them live in the Global North, some of them don’t. There are now 1,050 billionaires in the United States and 304 in China. We want a solidarity levy on the former group, absolutely, but are we really going to get one without taxing the latter as well?
There were many pre-COP29 finance debates. Last year, during one of them, it became all but impossible to avoid references to a paper by Andrew Fanning and Jason Hickel that argued that the United States—even if it pursues an ambitious emissions reduction trajectory—will by 2050 owe the countries of the Global South something like $200 trillion, as compensation for its historic over-appropriation of the atmospheric commons. It’s a stunning number, and even if it’s only somewhat true, it makes a stunning point.
The “Why Trump Won” debate in the United States is also throwing up some stunning numbers. In this illuminating comment by American historian Heather Cox Richardson, she cites research showing that, had the comparably equitable income structure of post-World War II America to 1974 held steady through 2020, the annual income of American workers below the 90th percentile would by 2018 have been $2.5 trillion higher than it actually turned out to be.
This means that between 1975 to 2018, “the difference between the aggregate taxable income for those below the 90th percentile and the equitable growth counterfactual totals $47 trillion.” Extend the trend ($2.5 trillion a year in shifted income) to 2024 and you arrive at the present: Since 1975, the richest 10% of Americans and especially the richest 1% have taken $60 trillion from the poorest 90%.
Sixty trillion dollars is not $200 trillion, but it’s not peanuts either. We would be fools to ignore it, in favor of a vision of global economic justice that identifies the Global North as the only significant barrier to honest hope. It is, certainly, a keystone barrier, but so too are the global rich, and they well deserve their fair share of the vilification.
The who pays question is one of the oldest on the climate equity agenda. It’s time to answer it properly.
Women, and in particular women from the Global South, have delivered some of the biggest successes in the global race to climate solutions.
The host country for this year’s United Nations climate negotiations recently made a mistake: It announced it would exclude women from the negotiations’ organizing committee. Reaction was fierce and immediate. Across the world, climate experts condemned the “shocking and unacceptable” decision to exclude women from leadership. In response, the host country, Azerbaijan, updated the committee to include 12 women along with 29 men.
In downplaying women’s abilities to fight the climate crisis, leaders miss a huge opportunity. Women are not only most affected by climate change; through the ingenuity born of necessity, we are devising ways to solve it. Women, and particularly women from rural areas of the Global South, are essential to the success of progress on climate change.
This year’s climate talks are known as “COP29,” as they are the 29th annual Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Greenhouse gas pollution remains far too high, with tragically predictable consequences for those whom the climate crisis is making more hungry, sick, conflict-prone, and forced into migration.
Rural women from the Global South deserve a seat as leaders at the climate negotiating table. Beyond that, the negotiating table deserves them.
The Paris climate agreement and the commitment to cover loss and damage from climate change are bright spots in this decades-long journey. But as noted by climate diplomat Catherine McKenna, a widely circulated photo that was promoted to the media at the end of last year’s negotiations left many with the mistaken impression that work on climate change has all been done by men.
This is not the case. Men alone have never led progress on climate change. Women, and in particular women from the Global South, have delivered some of the biggest successes in the global race to climate solutions.
The architect of the Paris climate agreement, Christiana Figueres, is from Costa Rica. The champion of the Loss and Damage Fund, Madeleine Diouf Sarr, is from Senegal. Even going back to the very foundations of the UNFCCC, which led to the COP process, women like Kenya’s Wangari Maathai were leading.
And far beyond the spotlight of the front pages, women in poor, rural areas continue to lead, albeit in unrecognized and unrewarded ways. Women do three-quarters of the world’s unpaid labor, according to a report by Oxfam. This includes everything from planting smallholder farms to gathering water to caring for sick family members. This is all work that is likely to be affected by climate change.
Even now, women are figuring out how to adapt. Women—and especially women in the Global South—are solving the grinding daily challenges of the climate crisis with ingenuity. They are shifting the dates when crops are planted, trying new ways to get water, and making time in busy days to devote extra care to those who are ill from climate-related illnesses.
Rural women from the Global South deserve a seat as leaders at the climate negotiating table. Beyond that, the negotiating table deserves them.
It is unthinkable that any real end to the climate crisis will leave behind the very people who have the greatest experience in grappling with it. Developing the talent pool that already exists within each country will build genuinely representative leadership teams that bring the full spectrum of expertise to bear.
This work is now done by leading NGOs like SHE Changes Climate and by surprising allies like the nuns who deliver healthcare, education, and development in rural regions. Intentional efforts by each party to the U.N.’s climate framework should complement and eventually outpace the work of these civil society champions.
Without question, there are plenty of women who get things wrong. Having women in recognized leadership is not in itself sufficient. But it is necessary.
The planetary crisis is the defining issue of our time, the one challenge that shapes all others. Leaving half of humanity out of the picture is not an option.
My wish for you in 2024 is to imbibe this wisdom and act on it: What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man.
Dear Joe,
I would wish you a Happy New Year; but it seems trite and banal, given all the challenges and troubles you and our country face in 2024—some inherited from previous administrations, others of your own making.
Americans are 10 times more likely to be shot to death than people in other wealthy countries, with homicides, suicides, and mass shootings on the increase. For the past four years, mass murders have skyrocketed into the 600s per year, breaking all past records. Since 2020 more children and teens are killed by firearms than any other cause.
Don’t these sound like war statistics?
Yes, you have established the first White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention. But it is rare to find anyone in your administration making the connection between our country’s record-breaking gun violence at home and our country’s record-breaking military weapons sales across the world, to democracies and autocracies alike, having grown dramatically over the past five years. To restate, isn’t it possible that the U.S. global culture of weapons and militarism, with nearly 100 military bases ringing the world, and our long and persistent history of war (nearly 40 in your and my lifetime) rebounds back to infect our violent culture here at home?
You are generous with weapons, but dismissive of dialogue where it is most needed.
The U.S. pledged $17.5 million to a loss and damage fund for poor countries vulnerable to extreme climate damage (for which the U.S. is more responsible than any other country) at the 2023 U.N. climate conference while doling out over $100 billion in weapons and military aid in the same year to feed and fuel wars in Gaza and Ukraine, wars that destroy and contaminate, likely irreparably, the homeland and ecosystems of those peoples who survive these wars and genocide in the case of Gaza. Crumbs for climate crisis and ruined ecosystems fall from the master’s table, while feasts of weapons abound.
Our habit of war “has yielded a host of perverse results here at home,” writes war veteran and noted historian of American military history, Andrew Bacevich. Neither have our wars brought about “peace [or democracy] by even the loosest definition of the word… the opposite in most case[s].” His wise counsel: Discard militarism in favor of “prudence and pragmatism.”
You often state proudly that we are the strongest military in the world, as if it is a crown of excellence, when in fact it is a crown of thorns on our country, which hangs on a cross of iron. As former president Dwight Eisenhower memorably said in 1953: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”
What felonious theft our military budget is from the 140 million poor and low-income American people, 40% of U.S. citizens, for whom the crucial Poor People’s Campaign advocates. Forty-four million Americans “struggled with hunger” in 2022, according to USDA. Diseases of despair are rampant. Our life expectancy—a critical marker of people’s overall health—is lower than all comparable wealthy countries and many other countries including China and Cuba. Recall Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s warning: “If America does not use her vast resources of wealth to end poverty and make it possible for all of God’s children to have the basic necessities of life, she too will go to hell.”
I do wish that that you had read the other Catholic president John F Kennedy’s 1963 peace speech at American University before you met recently in San Francisco with Xi Jinping, president of the People’s Republic of China. At the height of the Cold War with the Soviet Union and the Cuban Missile crisis, Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev opened a line of communication and held many secret talks, despite monumental political differences, for the sake of moving away from imminent nuclear war. In his 1963 address at American University, Kennedy, after stating his abhorrence of communism, praised Russia’s key role in saving Europe from Nazism while losing 20 million citizens, and he foregrounded the two countries’ shared humanity: “If we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.”
In many diplomatic private talks and communications, also involving Pope John XXIII, Kennedy and Khrushchev laid the groundwork for ending above ground nuclear weapons testing with the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons and forging a more peaceful country-to-country relationship. Within six-and-a-half months President Kennedy was assassinated, with the CIA strongly implicated.
Xi’s remarks to a gathering of business leaders, following your more private meeting with him last November, manifests a kinship with JFK’s speech. He displayed respect for our country’s accomplishments (even if for self-serving reasons) and advocated the two countries accept political diversity in a multipolar world. Joe, if you had listened more deeply, you may have given a wiser response to a reporter’s question than your dismissive, “Yes, I think Xi is a dictator” —an off-the cuff remark that conveys little wisdom or will to work together to rescue the world from war and climate crisis and to live in a multipolar, diverse world. You are generous with weapons, but dismissive of dialogue where it is most needed.
My wish for you in 2024 is to imbibe this wisdom and act on it: What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man. That is the core of the Torah, the New Testament, the Quran, and other religious traditions. Make it your own, end the U.S. addiction to war, and save your country’s soul and your own.
"There is a global postcode lottery that is stacked against the poor," Christian Aid's chief executive said on the publication of the charity's annual list of the year's costliest climate-driven disasters.
Christian Aid's annual list of the 20 costliest climate crisis-driven disasters of 2023, published Wednesday, reveals a "double injustice," as populations that have emitted relatively little greenhouse gas disproportionately suffer the impacts of extreme weather events ranging from floods to storms to wildfires.
While the disasters on the list impacted low-, medium-, and high-income countries, the U.K.-based charity observed that people in low-income nations have fewer resources to recover.
"When it comes to the climate crisis, there is a global postcode lottery that is stacked against the poor," Christian Aid chief executive Patrick Watt said in a statement. "In poorer countries, people are often less prepared for climate-related disasters and have fewer resources with which to bounce back. The upshot is that more people die, and recovery is slower and more unequal."
The disasters on the list reflect an accelerating climate emergency, as 2023 is set to be the hottest year both on the official record and in 125,000 years of human history.
"The effects of climate change are increasingly obvious, not least in the increasing frequency and severity of climate related disasters," Watt wrote in the report foreword. "Floods, storms, heatwaves, and droughts are all becoming more intense, and climate attribution science is becoming clearer that climate change is causing these more intense disasters."
The report focuses on disasters whose increased frequency or intensity have been linked to the burning of fossil fuels, excluding events like earthquakes. It draws primarily on the EM-DAT database of international disasters, supplementing with data from individual countries, insurers, and the United Nations. It then determines their per capita cost by dividing total damages by the impacted population.
"The worst negative impact of Cyclone Freddy that I shall never forget in my entire life is the destruction of the only house that we struggled to construct."
"This method offers a more individualized perspective of the disaster's impact, highlighting the financial strain on the average citizen rather than just the aggregate economic toll," the report authors explained.
The costliest climate disaster of 2023 was the wildfire that devastated Maui from August 8 to 11. The report found that the fires had a per capita cost of $4,161 for the people of Hawaii. While Hawaii is part of the U.S., a wealthy country, other commenters have noted that the fire reflected the legacy of the colonialism inflicted on Indigenous Hawaiians and land-use changes that favored first agricultural plantations and then tourism over maintaining a healthy ecosystem. Locals and climate justice advocates voiced concerns that the affected area would be rebuilt in the interests of wealthy developers rather than surviving residents.
Other headline-making disasters on the list included the flooding that inundated Libya in September and Cyclone Freddy in Malawi, which was the second deadliest cyclone in Africa since 2000.
Christian Aid's full list of the 20 costliest disasters of 2023 and their per capital price tag is as follows:
The report authors pointed out that per capita costs tend to be higher in wealthier countries that have higher costs of living and more insurance data to inform figures. This does not always reflect the relative impact of a disaster on a population. For example, a full recovery from Storm Freddy in Malawi is estimated to cost $680 million.
"Given the scale of the disaster, and the huge number of people affected, this may seem like a relatively low amount," the report authors noted, "but since the total of economy of Malawi is $13 billion, it represents 5%, a much higher proportion than in most other disasters on our list."
The per-person cost of that full recovery comes out to $33, which seems small by U.S. standards but amounts to more than 5% of the average annual income of $500 in Malawi.
"The worst negative impact of Cyclone Freddy that I shall never forget in my entire life is the destruction of the only house that we struggled to construct," 69-year-old widow and storm survivor Mofolo Chikaonda told Christian Aid.
Watt wrote in the foreword that "the fact that poorer countries and communities contribute little to global heating makes climate-related disasters a double inequality. This is an injustice that a growing number of poorer countries and civil society campaigners have rightly challenged."
The charity made several recommendations for the international community to prepare for and address climate disasters in a just manner.
"Governments urgently need to take further action at home and internationally to cut emissions and adapt to the effects of climate change," Watt said. "And where the impacts go beyond what people can adapt to, the loss and damage fund must be resourced to compensate the poorest countries for the effects of a crisis that isn't of their making."
A loss and damage fund to help poorer nations pay for the inevitable impacts of the climate crisis was agreed to at the 27th annual U.N. Climate Change Conference (COP27) in 2022 and had its details finalized at this year's COP28 in Dubai.
"Loss and damage costs are in the hundreds of billions of dollars annually in developing countries alone," Nushrat Chowdhury, Christian Aid's climate justice policy adviser in Bangladesh, said in a statement. "Wealthy nations must commit the new and additional money required to ensure the loss and damage fund agreed at COP28 can be quickly get help to those that need it most."
Christian Aid said that countries should agree on a New Collective Quantified Goal to fully fund climate mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage; make sure poorer nations can quickly access the new loss and damage fund as it becomes operational in 2024; make vulnerable communities more resilient by investing in solutions like agroecology; increase funding for early warning and response systems; measure the impacts of disasters and share their findings; and establish social services at home to assist disaster victims while providing poorer nations with the debt relief, funding, and tax-rule reform they need so they can afford to help their own populations.
One critic noted that the United States is "insisting that a fossil fuel phaseout is the moral litmus test for climate leadership at COP28 while reaching record levels crude oil production—with no plans to stop!"
As the current United Nations Climate Change Conference draws to a close, campaigners and journalists say U.S. hypocrisy is making it harder to negotiate a just and equitable phaseout of fossil fuels.
U.S. Special Envoy for Climate John Kerry said at the talks that he supported a phaseout, as The New York Times reported, and the U.S. State Department said Monday that a draft that excluded it "needs to be substantially strengthened," according to the Financial Times. Yet U.S. projects make up more than a third of all new oil and gas extraction planned worldwide through 2050, prompting Oil Change International to dub it the "planet-wrecker-in-chief."
"The U.S. insisting that a fossil fuel phaseout is the moral litmus test for climate leadership at COP28 while reaching record levels crude oil production—with no plans to stop!—feels like a strategy designed in a lab to drive people insane," journalist Kate Aronoff tweeted Monday.
"It's easy to point the finger at some of the Gulf states here, but we should not ignore the fact that the United States has the single largest oil and gas expansion plans of any country in the world by far."
When a draft text of the Global Stocktake was published Monday with no mention of the fossil fuel phaseout called for by civil society and many climate vulnerable nations, much of the outrage focused on the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), including COP28 host country the United Arab Emirates. The conference already faced scrutiny because its president, Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber, is also the CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC), and a whistleblower account ahead of the conference revealed he had been using COP28 negotiations to push oil and gas deals.
Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, for example, said the draft text read "as if OPEC dictated it word for word," adding it was "'of the Petrostates, by the Petrostates, and for the Petrostates.'"
Yet even before the draft, climate advocates had pointed out that the so-called petrostates weren't the only ones obstructing progress: While not a member of OPEC, the U.S. has been the leading producer of oil and gas for the last five years, overtaking Saudi Arabia and Russia by 44%, according to Inside Climate News.
"It's easy to point the finger at some of the Gulf states here, but we should not ignore the fact that the United States has the single largest oil and gas expansion plans of any country in the world by far," Brandon Wu, director of policy and campaigns with ActionAid USA, told Inside Climate News.
At the same time, the U.S. is pushing untested solutions like carbon capture and storage (CCS) and treating Indigenous, minority, and low-income communities within its own borders as sacrifice zones.
"They want to ship captured carbon from their land to my homelands and sequester it there," Panganga Pungowiyi, an Indigenous mother from Sivungaq, on Dena ina lands near Anchorage, Alaska, told Inside Climate News. "What we're observing is the violation of Indigenous people's rights and the violation of the sacredness of Mother Earth by continued commodification, whether by the extraction of fossil fuels or by the designation of her body and surface as a storage facility for carbon."
"The U.S., in other words, would like the rest of the world to agree to do something it cannot possibly do itself."
When it comes to fossil fuel expansion in particular, the U.S. Gulf Coast sits on the frontlines of drilling, petrochemical manufacturing, and the buildout of liquefied natural gas export facilities.
"To us in the Gulf South, what they say is not matched by their actions," John Beard, founder and executive director of the Port Arthur Community Action Network in Texas, told Inside Climate News of the U.S. government. "They continue to do more of what created the problem by allowing more liquid fossil gas facilities to be sited and by expediting more crude oil exports."
Overall, President Joe Biden approved more oil and gas drilling permits on public lands in the first two years of his administration than did former President Donald Trump in the first two years of his, despite a campaign promise to end the practice.
What's true of government plans is also true of U.S.-based fossil fuel companies, Aronoff pointed out for The New Republic: ExxonMobil plans to increase production by 11% next year and even further to 4.2 million barrels of oil a day by 2027 while Chevron said it would increase its spending from $17 billion this year to $18.5-19.5 billion in 2024. Current U.S. law does not limit fossil fuel production; the Inflation Reduction Act only provides carrots for renewable energy, not sticks for oil, gas, and coal. And the makeup of Congress means that Democrats would have a difficult time passing laws to restrict fossil fuels even if they wanted to.
By calling for a fossil fuel phaseout at COP28, Aronoff wrote, "the U.S., in other words, would like the rest of the world to agree to do something it cannot possibly do itself. It is by all accounts planning to speed in the opposite direction, with no plans to place any limits on the companies leading that charge. You'd be forgiven for thinking this situation doesn't make any sense because it doesn't."
Another factor that undermines the U.S. and other wealthy nations during climate negotiations is their lack of commitment to funding the renewable energy transition in developing countries.
"Where is the money? Where's the money?"
While the U.S. and E.U. call for a phaseout, Sara Shaw of Friends of the Earth International said, "they are seeking to water down the climate finance provisions (one of the elements of the text which is better than expected) so urgently needed to enable the energy transition in the Global South."
The U.S. has already successfully weakened the framework document for the new Loss and Damage Fund to help developing nations with the inevitable costs of climate change, Wu wrote in Context. Instead of stipulating that developed nations contribute, it now reads, "The fund is able to receive contributions from a wide variety of sources.
Wu added on social media that some developing countries are satisfied with the COP28 stocktake draft text as is because they do not think it would be possible to phase out fossil fuels without funding, and they do not trust wealthy nations to provide it.
"No phaseout/no finance leads to climate chaos. Phaseout/no finance ALSO leads to climate disaster, because a phaseout isn't possible in the majority world without finance and tech," Wu tweeted. "We need phaseout WITH finance."
"Only developed countries have the ability to deliver the missing ingredient to make this whole process work," Wu continued. "Not only are they not doing it, they're signaling that they never want to do it, by watering all new text recalling their obligations. It's never been clearer that providing finance is not only an ethical imperative, it's also a climate imperative. If we must play a blame game, let's point the finger at the developed countries that have been consistently failing this imperative."
Romain Ioualalen, the global policy campaign manager at Oil Change International, added: "Where is the money? Where's the money? We've been hearing from the African group in particular that they're not opposed to transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy but they're going to need support."
"If developed countries had met their financial obligations in this process, and were sending a clear signal that these countries would be financially supported through the transition, maybe the deal would be more secure at this stage," Ioualalen said.
"The United States refuses to acknowledge historic responsibility for the decades of damage that has been done to communities bearing the brunt of climate change and the fossil fuel industry," said one advocate.
Climate justice advocates, outraged over the inadequate funding that was pledged to the "loss and damage" fund as the United Nations Climate Change Conference opened this week, reserved particular disdain on Friday for the United States delegation and its refusal to contribute a meaningful amount to the fund.
The Climate Justice Alliance said the U.S. contribution of just $17.5 million for the loss and damage fund—a tiny fraction of the nearly $900 billion President Joe Biden requested for his military budget earlier this year and the annual fossil fuel subsidies distributed by the U.S. government—sent a clear message to the Global South: that "the U.S. is completely uninterested in prioritizing or being accountable to the climate impacts frontline communities are facing."
"The amount pledged by the United States is insulting," said Bineshi Albert, co-executive director of the organization. "It is a paltry, shameful amount of money... By comparison, island nations have requested at least $100 billion over the first four years."
The sum also made clear that the Biden administration is following through on Special Presidential Climate Envoy John Kerry's remarks at a hearing in July, in which he said that "under no circumstances" would the U.S. provide funding to countries in the Global South that are increasingly facing prolonged droughts, rising sea levels, and severe storms, among other climate impacts as a result of planetary heating.
"The United States refuses to acknowledge historic responsibility for the decades of damage that has been done to communities bearing the brunt of climate change and the fossil fuel industry," said Albert.
The U.S. is by far the largest historic emitter of planet-heating emissions, while many countries that are already facing the worst impacts of the climate emergency, such as small Pacific island nations, shoulder the least blame for the crisis.
Albert called the $17.5 million pledged by the U.S. "a drop in the bucket compared to the annual $20.5 billion in fossil fuel subsidies handed out by the US government, which recently surged to $7 trillion in 2022."
To help governments in the Global South rebuild damaged communities, prevent further destruction, and relocate displaced people, developing countries have said they will ultimately need about $400 billion annually.
$17.5 million "is not only ineffective to address these harms and injustices but it is minuscule compared to the hundreds of billions in loan, grants, and tax breaks available from the Inflation Reduction Act to corporations to further build out or prolong the life of fossil fuel infrastructure and energy intensive fuels like hydrogen," said Albert.
She added that it is not lost on advocates that the U.S. government pushed for contributions to the loss and damage fund to be voluntary: "another clear sign that the United States does not take responsibility for its harmful past actions nor does it consider the needs of the most impacted and marginalized communities seriously."
With contributions from other wealthy governments ranging from just $10 million (Japan) to $245 million (the European Union), Amnesty International climate adviser Ann Harrison said wealthy countries committed "barely enough to get the fund running, and little more."
"Billions of dollars are needed to make a substantive difference to communities in desperate need of help to rebuild homes after storms, or to support farmers when their crops are destroyed, or those permanently displaced by the climate crisis," said Harrison. "Considering the vast and excess profits accrued by fossil fuel companies last year while they continue to trash the climate, and that some the donor states today were responsible for a large proportion of historical greenhouse gas emissions, this is a disappointingly small initial sum."
High-income countries that continue to produce fossil fuels despite clear warnings from energy and climate experts, said Harrison, must "make new and additional commitments to the fund on a scale which reflects the global nature of climate crisis, and the threat it presents to billions of people."
The conference presents a rare opportunity to break down the silos of distance and borders and problem-solve together, as a global community.
The twenty-eighth annual United Nations climate summit—or COP28—has begun here in Dubai, UAE, where I’m joining the Union of Concerned Scientists delegation for another round of international discussions on how we can turn the global temperature down as fast as possible on our rapidly heating planet. Eight years after the 2015 COP that produced the Paris Agreement, in which the world’s nations agreed to stick to a strict schedule to cut global warming emissions, I’m balancing my hope that humanity can come together to commit to even more ambitious goals.
The reality is that we have a very heavy lift ahead of us if we are going to affect the transformative change needed to secure a livable future. But at UCS, I am buoyed every day by the possibilities for progress that science shines a light on. Hope also certainly feels more alive here in Dubai standing shoulder to shoulder with some of the smartest and most committed leaders and activists from around the world.
In the United States, it’s still entirely within our reach to meet our goals to cut heat-trapping emissions 50%-52% below 2005 levels by 2030, and achieve net zero emissions no later than 2050.
That said, this COP is being held against the grim backdrop of our accelerating climate crisis. We are already seeing the deeply inequitable consequences of our refusal to stop burning fossil fuels all around us, and I know I’ll be hearing from people from around the world about unbelievably extreme weather events over this past year. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s sixth assessment, released this spring, warned us of what science has been telling us for decades: Without swift dramatic changes, we will soon exceed 1.5˚C in global average temperature, the point at which irreversible climate damage will cause even more extreme disruptions to life as we know it.
Our task at COP28 is to hold and speak these hard truths with courage. As my colleague Kristy Dahl writes:
[E]ven if we know it’s unlikely we’ll be able to hold warming to 1.5°C or less, we need to behave as if we can hold warming to 1.5°C or less—while also preparing communities for a more dangerous world where we have blown past that.
Our task is also to balance those hard truths with another truth: that in the United States, it’s still entirely within our reach to meet our goals to cut heat-trapping emissions 50%-52% below 2005 levels by 2030, and achieve net zero emissions no later than 2050. There are several levers for the structural and systemic transformation that we need that can help us get there—and the UCS delegation is bringing these priorities and our skills into COP28 to advocate, educate, listen, connect, and learn so we may best deploy them.
At COP28, the UCS team will be representing our cutting-edge climate science attribution work that links specific climate change impacts—including degrees of global average temperature increases, the acidification of our oceans, inches of sea level rise, and most recently, percentage of acreage burned in Western U.S. and Canadian wildfires—to the world’s major fossil fuel companies. This evidence is crucial to making a legal case for these wealthy companies to pay for the damages they’ve caused, to stop deceiving the public about the risks of their products, and to change their business models altogether to stop extracting fossil fuels. As more cities, states, municipalities, and countries file lawsuits against Big Oil, UCS offers a dedicated forum—our Science Hub for Climate Litigation—where researchers and practitioners can convene to help accelerate the publication and application of such litigation-relevant research. To date, nearly three-quarters of all lawsuits against Big Oil across the United States have cited research from the Union of Concerned Scientists.
While we’re meeting with fellow advocates, activists, and members of frontline communities from around the world, we’ll be sharing our research and strategies to inspire stronger demands for accountability from the fossil fuel industry. And we’re also going to make sure that Big Oil’s corporate representatives and lobbyists at COP28 aren’t drowning out the voices of those most affected by the climate crisis, with their tactics of greenwashing, delay, and downright denial.
This year, some of the most important negotiations will center around funding for the international Loss and Damage Fund that was approved into existence at last year’s meeting in Sharm el-Sheikh. This fund is intended to provide resources to climate-vulnerable, low-income countries, most if not all of which have contributed the least to climate change, to help them cope with its extreme impacts.
COP28 began promisingly, with the nations assembled adopting an agreement to operationalize the Loss and Damage Fund. This agreement wasn’t a guarantee, considering the difficult negotiations around the fund for the past year, as wealthier countries that are far more responsible for climate change, including the United States, petitioned for conditions on funding perceived as unfair by less wealthy countries.
The UCS delegation will continue to push for the United States to do as much as possible to operationalize and commit to resourcing the Loss and Damage Fund, so it can provide funding for low- and middle-income nations reeling from extreme climate impacts. At UCS, our position is that climate reparations are a crucial part of ensuring justice for climate-vulnerable nations.
in addition to advocating for the U.S. to support a fully operational and well-resourced Loss and Damage Fund, the UCS team and I are ready to press our leaders and representatives to commit to the drastic, rapid, and sweeping cuts in emissions we need so urgently; a complete phaseout of fossil fuels.
I would be remiss if I didn’t mention a huge loss to the international community of scientists and activists working on Loss and Damage. The expertise, kindness, and moral clarity that Dr. Saleemul Huq brought to these conversations will be deeply missed, along with his steady presence. This will be the first-ever COP without Huq, who passed away at home in Dhaka, Bangladesh, in October. We will do our best to carry his message forward.
To our solidarity with an exceptional array of partners—as of course, no one organization alone can affect the solutions we need!—we at UCS bring a vital blend of science and advocacy and our deep bench of experts. At home in the United States, we partner with more than 1,000 organizations to identify and address regional challenges with community expertise and buy-in, to support each other’s work and priorities, and to amplify our shared demands for science- and justice-based policies.
Our partnerships help us center racial and economic equity in our science-based solutions, strengthen our advocacy, and help us expand our reach far beyond what we could do on our own. For just one example, the NAACP teamed up with UCS before COP28 to amplify the reach of our call for climate and environmental justice at the summit, sharing a letter to President Joe Biden signed by more than 650 scientists, urging him to commit to bold climate action to improve public health and address environmental racism.
And here in Dubai, in addition to advocating for the U.S. to support a fully operational and well-resourced Loss and Damage Fund, the UCS team and I are ready to press our leaders and representatives to commit to the drastic, rapid, and sweeping cuts in emissions we need so urgently; a complete phaseout of fossil fuels. We’re uniting with frontline community representatives, grassroots organizers, and national and international organizations like ours to call for our leaders to make science and justice-centered decisions at the convening—because every tenth of a degree of warming that we can prevent will have huge consequences for the world.
Because the climate crisis affects everyone in the world, we are all part of its solutions. And the radical transformative change we need to our systems can only be achieved when we can truly see how interconnected they are. One of the most exciting aspects of these convenings is the potential for true systemic change, thanks to the rare opportunity to break down the silos of distance and borders and problem-solve together, as a global community.
UCS staff is accustomed to taking a systemic approach to the planet’s most pressing problems. In fact, it is what we are well known for in the advocacy space. Our scientific and technical experts work to identify the intersections of problems in energy, agriculture, and transportation that contribute to the climate crises, and to develop systemic solutions that solve for multiple variables and benefit each sector. We’re looking forward to the chance to step back from our own systems and take a global view, for global solutions, with our partners and colleagues.
I’ll be thinking of every UCS supporter, partner, and activist over the next week while I’m in Dubai. Your support helps us center science and justice in these important international convenings: thank you.
"Humanity's fate hangs in the balance," said U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres at second day of global climate conference.
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres repeated the call for a global phaseout of fossil fuels during his remarks at the opening of the World Climate Action Summit as the U.N. Climate Change Conference entered its second day on Friday.
Guterres delivered a dire warning to the 260 world leaders gathered for the two-day summit taking place within the two week COP28 conference in Dubai as he urged them to ramp up their climate ambitions in the name of the future of human civilization.
"The science is clear," Guterres said. "The 1.5°C limit is only possible if we ultimately stop burning all fossil fuels. Not reduce. Not abate. Phaseout—with a clear timeframe aligned with 1.5°C."
"Make this COP count. Make this COP a gamechanger. Make this COP the new hope in the future of humankind."
Guterres began his remarks on a positive note, congratulating COP28 President Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber for a day-one agreement to operationalize the long-awaited "loss and damage" fund for developing nations. However, he quickly took a somber tone as he described recent visits to Antarctica and Nepal where he had seen ice and glaciers melt.
He said the ice loss was "just one symptom of the sickness bringing our climate to its knees. A sickness only you, global leaders, can cure."
"Earth's vital signs are failing: record emissions, ferocious fires, deadly droughts, and the hottest year ever," Guterres continued. "We can guarantee it even when we're still in November. We are miles from the goals of the Paris agreement—and minutes to midnight for the 1.5-°C."
The cure could come, Guterres said, with a successful "global stocktake." The global stocktake is a mechanism of the Paris agreement whereby world leaders assess their progress to date and set new goals. The first global stocktake concludes with the current conference in Dubai, and the process will repeat every five years from here on out.
Guterres made three main recommendations for the first stocktake:
In his remarks on fossil fuels and clean energy, Guterres also addressed fossil fuel executives directly.
"Your old road is rapidly changing," he said, quoting Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are a-Changin.'"
Guterres cited International Energy Agency (IEA) figures finding that oil and gas companies provide only 1% of all clean energy investments.
"Do not double-down on an obsolete business model," Guterres said, addressing fossil fuel CEOs and the hundreds of industry lobbysists in attendance at the conference. "Lead the transition to renewables using the resources you have available. Make no mistake—the road to climate sustainability is also the only viable pathway to economic sustainability of your companies in the future."
Guterres ended his speech with a call to leadership.
"Humanity's fate hangs in the balance," he said. "Make this COP count. Make this COP a gamechanger. Make this COP the new hope in the future of humankind."