Frustration after climate conference: No final goodbye to oil and gas agreed ‘You are there because you deserve it’ – that’s the women at the World Cup

In their closing statement early Sunday morning, the 200 or so states also reaffirmed their previous decision to phase out coal. A farewell to oil and gas is not mentioned. The declaration thus falls short of the demands of many states, climate activists and environmentalists who see an end to dependence on dirty energy sources as a necessity.

The new compensation fund should deal with the inevitable consequences of global warming, such as increasingly frequent droughts, floods and storms, but also rising sea levels and desertification. The issue was the main point of contention during the two-week conference in Sharm el-Sheikh, which was extended by more than 36 hours.

The decision does not specify any amounts for the new fund or who exactly would have to pay. This will be clarified later. Developing countries that are particularly at risk are given preference. The EU in particular had insisted on this limitation.

The final declaration also asks states to improve their largely inadequate climate protection plans by the next climate conference. It will take place in the United Arab Emirates at the end of 2023. The improvements remain voluntary, there is no obligation.

The conference, for which some 34,000 participants traveled to the Red Sea, worked overtime on Friday evening. On the night of Saturday, after slow and sometimes chaotic processes, unrest broke out in negotiating circles. After heavy deliberation, the breakthrough finally followed early Sunday morning.

The US initially blocked the new compensation fund, while the group of more than 130 developing countries known as the G77 stepped up the pressure along with China. After initial reluctance, the European Union eventually changed its mind.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres called the new climate damage fund an important step towards justice. “That is certainly not enough, but it is an urgently needed signal to rebuild the lost confidence.”

One of the controversial aspects of the issue is China’s role. The country, which ranks first in terms of climate-damaging emissions, wants to continue to be treated as a developing country in terms of international climate protection. This was laid down in the Kyoto Protocol 30 years ago. Western countries no longer want to designate the country as a recipient country because of its economic power and role as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. China’s negotiator Xie Zhenhua said developing countries should get the money, but prioritized “vulnerable states”.

With the urgent need to contain global warming, environmental organizations are not giving enough testimonials to the conference. The “depressing result” doesn’t get any further than last year’s climate conference, criticized climate expert Jan Kowalzig of Oxfam Germany. “One must be very disappointed that the final text does not mention the absolutely necessary abolition of all fossil fuels – although many countries had demanded just that.”

In the end, it was not even possible to put a clear focus on the expansion of renewable energy – which was mainly due to opposition from Saudi Arabia. “Without a rapid and globally well-organized phase-out of coal, oil and gas, it will not be possible to limit warming to less than 1.5 degrees,” said Kowalzig.

In 2015, the world community agreed in Paris to limit warming to 1.5 degrees compared to pre-industrial times. The world has already warmed up by more than 1.1 degrees, Germany even more. According to scientific warnings, exceeding the limit of 1.5 degrees significantly increases the risk of activating so-called tipping elements in the climate system and thus uncontrollable chain reactions.

Greenpeace Germany’s executive director, Martin Kaiser, praised the decision to make compensation payments, but warned: “Now those who caused the climate crisis must take their responsibility and properly fill the new aid pot.” However, the fact that industrialized countries owe developing countries the promised aid payments for years has paid off.

The latter should actually be supported with USD 100 billion annually. The fact that that did not happen, according to Kaiser, aroused understandable mistrust. “Had the United States in particular paid its bills, the G7 would have been in a better negotiating position to force China and other emerging countries to pay into the fund now. At the end of this climate conference, there is a small plaster on a huge gaping wound.” (sda/dpa)