What if rich countries don’t donate money for climate?

One of the commitments of the Paris Agreement discussed at COP26 is this contribution from countries, but it is not an obligation.

Spain will allocate 1.35 billion euros annually from 2025 to the Green Climate Fund and Japan has pledged $10 billion over five years for Asia’s energy transition. The European Union will contribute $1.16 billion to the global plan to combat deforestation and Russia will allocate 2% of its GDP to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. All of this was announced at the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2021, the 26th Conference of the Parties, or COP26.

That’s a lot of money, most of it going to developing countries, and a lot of promises you have to put a magnifying glass on because it can’t be used for the purposes suggested (there is no regulation and there is a lot of corruption), or because their absence may be an excuse or a hindrance to those receiving the money for not achieve their goals.

India, for example, is one of the most populous and polluting countries, but yesterday, during the financial negotiations at COP26, its Prime Minister Narendra Modi warned that they would have to delay the carbon neutrality target by 20 years, at least until 2070. Because it ” It works to lift millions of people out of poverty.”

richer

There is a relationship between obligations, guilt and responsibilities. The richer countries are also because, for decades, they have benefited from a model of development based on extraction and generation of carbon footprints, which is why they are also the polluters. By having an economic advantage, explains Jose Roberto Acosta, attorney and economics professor at the Universidad del Rosario, they must strike a balance with those who are left behind.

See also  Dell: Trust is the new business currency

Ethicist Maria Alejandra González adds that, in the ‘development path’, poorer people have less capacity and resources to move to low-emission economies and are more vulnerable to the consequences of climate change, so they should fall on the shoulders of the rich. and Corporate Responsibility Coordinator at Aafit University. This is an obligation adopted by the Paris Agreement, but it is neither binding nor regulated. there is a problem.

richer

There is a relationship between obligations, guilt and responsibilities. The richer countries are also because, for decades, they have benefited from a model of development based on extraction and generation of carbon footprints, which is why they are also the polluters. By having an economic advantage, explains Jose Roberto Acosta, attorney and economics professor at the Universidad del Rosario, they must strike a balance with those who are left behind.

Ethicist Maria Alejandra González adds that, in the ‘development path’, poorer people have less capacity and resources to move to low-emission economies and are more vulnerable to the consequences of climate change, so they should fall on the shoulders of the rich. and Corporate Responsibility Coordinator at Aafit University. This is an obligation adopted by the Paris Agreement, but it is neither binding nor regulated. there is a problem.

This talk, what?

No country is obligated to fulfill these obligations, they are voluntary, and very few (almost no one) fulfill them. Only the United States (the second largest polluter, overtaken by China) has the largest funding deficit (and it gives the least money).

See also  Sabdail earned 220m through June, up 51% thanks to UK branch profits | Economie

Not having money could be used by the poorest as an excuse (or reason?) for not achieving the Green Goals, although according to Gonzalez, this is not a negative for the global crisis because these countries are not usually the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases. The greenhouse effect. Colombia, for example, exports only 0.6% of the total, while China exports 14.1%.

Although for Acosta this is an unjustified excuse because, for example, in this country, Colombia, there is money, which is only poorly invested. “To say that there is no money is an understatement, because for defense and for Asmad there is, but to avoid cutting down trees they say no.”

Incidentally, Germany, Norway and the United Kingdom announced a donation to Colombia of $33.5 million to fight deforestation, but here comes the other challenge: ensuring that this money is invested in what should be invested, but nothing is clear. The roadmap for doing so. (see box).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *