5 ways countries stymie climate negotiations without actually saying ‘no’
The methods can be subtle but effective at slowing progress, particularly when fossil fuels are involved. Here’s what to watch for as the latest global climate talks get underway.
Negotiations on climate change often face roadblocks from influential players who avoid explicitly rejecting progress. Here are five commonly employed tactics:
1. Claiming financial constraints is a frequent retort at U.N. climate conferences. In 2024, during COP29 in Azerbaijan, wealthy nations cited tight budgets, pandemic debt, and inflation as reasons for not meeting the US$1.3 trillion assistance requested by developing countries. Instead, they offered $300 billion annually by 2035 as a finance target.
Developing nations, who bear minimal responsibility for climate change, demand financial compensation for the damage caused by emissions from major emitters. The COP29 agreement itself estimated a required climate fund between $5.1 trillion and $6.8 trillion for developing countries by 2030. The reality of affordability is more about priorities; for instance, governments worldwide provided over $1.2 trillion in support for fossil fuels in 2024, about five times the $254 billion allocated for clean energy.
Military budgets offer a similar story, with the U.S. contributing $2 billion to the Green Climate Fund while approving $79 billion for foreign military purposes.
2. Promising future solutions is another tactic used to postpone or weaken climate action. The "stabilization wedge" approach, proposed in 2004 by Princeton scholars, suggests 15 strategies to reduce emissions, each cutting 1 billion tons of carbon dioxide. This approach, which includes carbon capture and storage, allows continued fossil fuel use by sequestering emissions underground.
However, scientists have criticized this simplistic solution. Recent reporting reveals that the development of these technologies is heavily influenced by fossil fuel interests. Agreements from recent climate talks also reflect this trend.
3. Softening promises over time until they become meaningless is another technique. At COP26 in Glasgow in 2022, an initial draft of the agreement called for the "phasing out" of fossil fuels, marking a significant milestone. However, under pressure from India and China, the final text was changed to "phasedown" of "unabated" coal power, ignoring oil and gas, which wealthier nations heavily rely on. This watering down of commitments weakens the overall impact of climate agreements.
Written by urgent.news from The Conversation's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
