COP27: Looking For Positives.

Managing the effects of climate change on the hydrological cycle has come up a few times in this blog and we’ve discussed both community-led, grassroots initiatives as well as transnational management schemes. One of the largest global discussions of climate change and policy is COP which held its 27^th meeting (COP27) in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt in November of this year. There were hopes that the decision to hold the meeting in Africa would indicate a discussion focused on the climate injustice faced by African nations and other low-income countries, who are generally the least responsible for climate change but experience its largest impacts.

UCL professors and lecturers Richard Taylor, Mark Maslin, Priti Parikh and Simon Chin-Yee were in attendance at COP27 and wrote this article which describes COP27 as a failure and is more than worth a read for a broader explanation of the shortcomings at this COP.

Though I agree majorly with the article and believe the discussions at COP27 largely did not progress past COP26, there was one key development: The Loss and Damage fund that was blocked in Glasgow last year by the US, EU and UK was approved at the last minute. This fund would provide financial aid, especially for developing countries, to support losses created by climate change-driven events, such as floods, droughts, and other disasters. While the approval of this fund is a small win for climate justice, the framework has not yet been created for who is responsible for funding the scheme and who its recipients will be. Though to many of us it will seem obvious that the US, EU, UK, and other high emitting countries should be contributing money to the fund, their previous blocking of the fund means that their involvement is likely to be contested and could delay the fund’s set-up. Equally, India and China have a further reluctance to contribute to the fund as they are not historic emitters, although China’s total accumulative emissions almost match that of the EU, as seen in the Figure below.

Figure 1: Cumulative CO₂ emissions for the four top emitters, showing their historic contributions (The Global Carbon Project). 

Due to this, it’s difficult to call the approval of the fund a success but it is, at least, a step forward. It’s vital that the countries that will most benefit from the Loss and Damage Fund, many African nations included, apply pressure for the proper policy for the fund to be discussed and finalised so reparations for climate injustice can finally begin.