While previous sessions typically dealt with general issues, the participants at the Baku conference will need to determine the mechanisms for mobilizing the $2 trillion required to address the planet’s climate challenges.
Equally important is establishing a clear set of priorities: should we primarily focus on combating the effects of climate change, or on preventing carbon emissions into the atmosphere?
According to most experts, financing should be directed primarily to developing countries and emerging market economies, which are in urgent need of investments in clean energy technologies.
However, it has become increasingly difficult to define the term “developing country.” For example, in a few years, many countries with emerging economies might become prosperous, even though they are currently categorized as poor. Just look at the history of the Republic of Azerbaijan after gaining independence. A country that faced colossal difficulties in the 1990s began to develop rapidly in the early 21st century, thanks to the influx of petrodollars, and today it is in a position to assist other nations in need.
Some experts argue that in the context of the energy transition, the international community should give priority attention to countries that rely heavily on oil and gas exports. They claim that such nations stand to lose the most from the “green” transition and therefore need the most support. However, Azerbaijan’s example challenges this approach. Despite over 90% of its budget coming from oil and gas revenues, Azerbaijan has become one of the most active participants in the energy transition and a decision-making hub on this critical issue.
Others believe that oil-producing nations, which have earned billions of dollars from emissions, should bear a significant portion of the climate-related costs. However, this approach is also questionable, as the benefits of oil and gas have been enjoyed by the entire global community. Furthermore, from an environmental standpoint, oil and gas were once considered the optimal fuel sources.
To find the best solution, one could refer to the Global Index list of countries with the highest carbon emissions in energy production in 2023. China leads this list by a wide margin (12,603 megatons of carbon), followed by the United States (5,130), India (3,121), Russia (2,176), and Japan (1,038). Canada (599) and South Korea (594 megatons of carbon) round out the top ten.
Perhaps it would be fair to demand compensation from these nations for the harm caused to the planet’s ecosystem. But how do you make the rich pay? They might instead force poor countries to bear the burden, finding countless reasons to justify it.
Regardless, climate change poses a threat to the entire planet, and both wealthy and poor nations must combat it. Of course, the financial contribution of each will not be the same—each must contribute as much as they can to address this global problem.
This complex issue will soon be addressed in Baku. Naturally, no country will commit to tens of billions of dollars without long and heated debates, especially on an issue whose essence remains unclear to many. On the other hand, these discussions could accelerate the fragmentation of the world into a global North and South, which might ultimately doom the plans of the international community and, along with them, our planet.
It seems that the event organizers, including the Azerbaijani government, hosting COP29, are fully aware of this. They are holding endless meetings and discussions in an effort to reconcile the conflicting positions.
Today, everyone recognizes that two key components are essential to solving the global climate crisis: political will and financial investment. Thus, it is necessary to find an optimal point that aligns the political will of the global South with the financial capacities of the global North, ultimately allowing for the mobilization of the required $2 trillion.
This, in essence, is the compromise. If it can be achieved, it will enable humanity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, make global infrastructure more resilient to extreme weather, and carry out the “green” transition necessary to keep global temperatures within the 1.5°C limit.
Mammad Efendiyev
Translated from haqqin.az
