‘We the islands, that are devastated most, demand that your commitments of one hundred billion [dollars] annually be increased to meet the four trillion dollars the World Bank reports is needed. We see the scorching sun is giving us intolerable heat, the warming sea is invading us, the strong winds are blowing us every which way. Our resources are disappearing before our eyes, and our future is being robbed from us. Frankly speaking, there is no dignity to a slow and painful death: you might as well bomb our islands, instead of making us suffer, only to witness our slow and fateful demise. Leaders of the G20, we are drowning, and our only hope is the life-ring you are holding. You must act now. We must act together.’ – Address by President of Palau at the COP26 summit
While it is the combined responsibility of both developed countries to come together with needed commitments– much more ambitious than being made– the onus falls on developed countries nevertheless to show far greater ambition, in terms of policy actions and finances, than have been committed and come true on. George Monbiot in his November 5 Guardian published article ‘Never min aid, never mind loans: what poor nations are owed is reparations’ indicated in this regard: ‘The wealthy nations, always keen to position themselves as saviours, have promised to help their former colonies adjust to the chaos they have caused. Since 2009, these rich countries have pledged $100billion a year to poorer ones in the form of climate finance. Even if this money had materialised, it would have been a miserly token. By comparison, since 2015, the G20 nations have spent $3.3 trillion on subsidising their fossil fuel industries. Needless to say, they have failed to keep their wretched promise.’
At the same time, the commitments that have been made, although encouraging, are not ambitious enough. In a November 5 editorial, The Guardian indicated encouraging part as: ‘Pledges made during Cop26’s first week were encouraging. But without adequate finance and monitoring they don’t mean much. While it is not yet clear exactly where the various pledges will get us to in terms of limiting temperature rises, the new agreement on methane spearheaded by President Joe Biden and a commitment by India to get half of its energy from renewable sources by 2030 are highly significant.’
While it is important that every country makes an ambitious effort to deal with the existential crisis in the shape of climate change, yet nevertheless the onus of commitments to deal with the climate change crisis, lies with rich, advanced countries, who have been big polluters in the historical sense, and have greater financial space, and hence responsibility to both commit much higher than developing countries, but also to provide need financial assistance to developing countries, particularly to those that are highly vulnerable.
Having said that, the encouraging signs, although not ambitious enough, are also facing an uphill task. A recent Bloomberg published article ‘India’s 2070 climate target is a far bigger deal than it sounds’ while shows optimism over India’s much changed stance in reducing emission since COP21 in Paris, nevertheless the much-needed target of 2050 has been missed by 20 years, which is big indeed. The limit of 2050 indeed needs to be seen with a sense of extreme rigidity, and rightly so given IPCC’s forecast on reaching 1.5°C in a little over a decade. As per the article ‘For a world that needs its carbon emissions to diminish to nothing within the next 30 years, the announcement by India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi of a 2070 net zero target might sound profoundly disappointing. The world’s biggest emitter, China, isn’t promising zero before 2060. The second-largest, the USA, is unlikely to be able to pass legislation through Congress sufficient to fortify President Joe Biden’s 2050 target against unpicking by future administrations or the courts. Now the third-ranked polluter is out with a promise that’s 20 years too late. After a lacklustre communique on climate from the Group of 20 meeting in Rome, the United Nations climate conference in Glasgow might appear to have already failed.’ Although the writer does not agree COP26 has failed, yet optimism of Bloomberg about India’s emission related net-zero target by 2070 is indeed something the writer does not share. The bigger polluters have more responsibility, and science needs to take precedence over politics, and shorter-term profits; and there are no term gains to be had for the planet if meaningful action is not taken on dealing with the climate change crisis.
Moreover, while it is important that every country makes an ambitious effort to deal with the existential crisis in the shape of climate change, yet nevertheless the onus of commitments to deal with the climate change crisis, lies with rich, advanced countries, who have been big polluters in the historical sense, and have greater financial space, and hence responsibility to both commit much higher than developing countries, but also to provide need financial assistance to developing countries, particularly to those that are highly vulnerable.
