3 ms·

Developing nations blast $300B COP29 climate deal as insufficient

42 points by alephnerd 2y ago

dosinga 2y ago
" $300 billion annually by 2035" to me 300 sounds pretty good. But that's a long time
- deepnet 2y ago
  200 countries pledged $300 billion per year in total - not very much since climate change disasters are already costing tens of billions a year and many human lives in the US alone. Also this target is 11 years away. Definitely disappointing.
dataflow 2y ago
Edit: sorry I misread, never mind, thanks.
- dosinga 2y ago
  I think it says 300B /by/ 2035 per year
wtcactus 2y ago
I find it baffling that, for instance, India, one the most polluted and polluting country in the planet on several metrics, is one of the recipient of the money. People in countries that go the extra mile to keep the environment as clean as possible and that already cleanup after others, are being extorted money to give to a country that's responsible, for instance, for the most plastic being poured into the ocean after China. [1] This is a total inversion of principles and a reinforcement of negative behavior. These countries should be suffering penalties, not getting rewards. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stemming-the-plastic-tide-10-rivers-contribute-most-of-the-plastic-in-the-oceans/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stemming-the-plas...
- dataflow 2y ago
  > I find it baffling that, for instance, India, one the most polluted and polluting country in the planet on several metrics, is one of the recipient of the money. It's for tackling climate change, not pollution.
- aurareturn 2y ago
  Considering that the average person in these so called developed countries pollute and consume far more than the average person in India and China, I don't see your point.
  - wtcactus 2y ago
    Well, one of the points is trying to figure out how that constantly used "per capita" argument ever solves environmental problems. Exactly why should we reward India when it comes to pollution just because they have a lot of people? What does that do for the environment and for solving the climate crisis? Should the West start doing their part when it comes to save the environment by having a lot more children?
    - aurareturn 2y ago
      So what do you want India to do? Have de-population programs? Split into 1000 smaller countries so that each country is well below the average developed country in raw environmental impact? It's more fair to use a per capita metric rather than per country. Not only does the average person in developed countries consume far more, they also use much more goods manufactured from places like India and China. So they're just outsourcing their environmental impact.
      - wtcactus 2y ago
        The very first thing to do, is to not take money from people on developed countries to give to India. A wealth transfer should only go to developing countries that are improving their environmental impact, never to countries like India that are constantly doing worst. Then, to look at CO2 emissions per land area. Which should be the fairest way of measuring the countries that are actually doing good, instead of rewarding high birthrates that only make the environmental problem worst.
rdm_blackhole 2y ago
I don't mean this in bad way but these COP conferences really don't make sense. Each time we have the leaders on every country saying that this time for real they are going to stick with the plan and lower their emissions. Yet according to this link: https://climateactiontracker.org/publications/the-climate-crisis-worsens-the-warming-outlook-stagnates/ https://climateactiontracker.org/publications/the-climate-cr... The progress on the already agreed targets has been lacking. It's like having a meeting about a project whose deadline was 3 weeks ago and having your team tell you that the new deadline 2 days from now will for sure be met this time. Countries keep agreeing to new targets that are even more ambitious than the previous unmet targets. It's not as if just publishing the new targets will make the old targets much more achievable. Make it make sense.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- brabel 2y ago
  There's pressure from your peers to meet deadlines you have agreed upon, though some countries have the excuse that because the party in Government changes every 4 years, they didn't really agree to anything :/ What would you suggest that they should do instead of setting goals?
  - elashri 2y ago
    > though some countries have the excuse that because the party in Government changes every 4 years, they didn't really agree to anything :/ I mean the agreement is between the countries and not ruling regimes/parties. I would find it hard to assume that a diplomat will say we didn't agree on anything, this was previous government to be very appealing argument. Although there are details like in the US getting back on their pledges and who can say something. But that's more of power dynamics and not actual argument. Otherwise these countries engaged in decades long agreements with many parties (even international agreements) without problems.
  - rdm_blackhole 2y ago
    > There's pressure from your peers to meet deadlines you have agreed upon That is my point exactly, most countries have agreed to targets and deadlines that they have not met either through inaction or something else entirely. So what is the point of the new targets if the old targets have not been met yet? > What would you suggest that they should do instead of setting goals? How about meeting the previous targets before setting new ones? Otherwise you just loose credibility.
dfhgfhgfhgfhjk 2y ago
This whole charade is so ill conceived. Honestly, the top 20 developed nations are literally THE problem. It's a demand side problem not a supply side one. We need to stop buying container loads of virtually disposable electronics from China every week, stop driving to the shops, stop running energy intensive appliances, you get the drift. Of course if people actually did this it would tank our developed economies.
- nobodywillobsrv 2y ago
  I wish they (COP crowd) would talk about TFR and do rollouts under worst case scenario. Low TFR countries should continue to shrink. But high TFR countries are likely to get less poor. They are the problem. If people are truly fungible like they say, migrating low consumption people to high consumption states despite local resistance is the worst idea ever. I wish they would focus on these points.
  - sabbaticaldev 2y ago
    > I wish they (COP crowd) would talk about TFR and do rollouts under worst case scenario. I wish you had defined TFR so we can understand if you are attacking poor countries or defending the riches
    - igorkraw 2y ago
      TFR is total fertility rate. GP is saying "the problem is not the overconsumption in the rich countries with low TFR, it's the poor countries with high TFR getting richer and consuming more and people migrating to countries where they consume more". Which falls apart looking at the map of highest ghg emissions https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-ghg-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-ghg-emissions vs the negative impact caused by climate change and the ability to mitigate https://gain-new.crc.nd.edu/ranking https://gain-new.crc.nd.edu/ranking . curtailing migration without massive reduction in the overconsumption by the rich countries amounts to having the poorer nations pay bills (via enduring disasters) for damage they didn't cause, which I find an injustice. Doing that and limiting economic growth and thus limiting the capability of dealing with the disasters would just be cruelty. If you want to reduce migration without injustice or cruelty, you need to make sure other countries remain livable and thrive, hence the OPs hook.
croes 2y ago
Less than half the US military budget
tjpnz 2y ago
That there were sixty-five private jets parked in Baku says much about how seriously this is being taken. https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/11/15/did-people-have-to-fly-to-cop29-private-jet-use-soared-but-one-group-got-to-baku-overland https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/11/15/did-people-have-to...
Am4TIfIsER0ppos 2y ago
Ah yes punishment for inventing the sail.
gmuslera 2y ago
"You can keep beating me but you should pay the first hospital bill". A short term mitigation but a long/middle term death sentence. That is what they were pursuing for. Maybe is all that could be obtained as things are set up, and I mean mostly about the power structures around this, including the very COPx organization.

42 points by alephnerd 2y ago

dosinga 2y ago

" $300 billion annually by 2035" to me 300 sounds pretty good. But that's a long time

deepnet 2y ago
200 countries pledged $300 billion per year in total - not very much since climate change disasters are already costing tens of billions a year and many human lives in the US alone. Also this target is 11 years away. Definitely disappointing.

dataflow 2y ago

Edit: sorry I misread, never mind, thanks.

dosinga 2y ago
I think it says 300B /by/ 2035 per year

wtcactus 2y ago

I find it baffling that, for instance, India, one the most polluted and polluting country in the planet on several metrics, is one of the recipient of the money. People in countries that go the extra mile to keep the environment as clean as possible and that already cleanup after others, are being extorted money to give to a country that's responsible, for instance, for the most plastic being poured into the ocean after China. [1] This is a total inversion of principles and a reinforcement of negative behavior. These countries should be suffering penalties, not getting rewards. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stemming-the-plastic-tide-10-rivers-contribute-most-of-the-plastic-in-the-oceans/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stemming-the-plas...

dataflow 2y ago
> I find it baffling that, for instance, India, one the most polluted and polluting country in the planet on several metrics, is one of the recipient of the money. It's for tackling climate change, not pollution.
aurareturn 2y ago
Considering that the average person in these so called developed countries pollute and consume far more than the average person in India and China, I don't see your point.
- wtcactus 2y ago
  Well, one of the points is trying to figure out how that constantly used "per capita" argument ever solves environmental problems. Exactly why should we reward India when it comes to pollution just because they have a lot of people? What does that do for the environment and for solving the climate crisis? Should the West start doing their part when it comes to save the environment by having a lot more children?
  - aurareturn 2y ago
    So what do you want India to do? Have de-population programs? Split into 1000 smaller countries so that each country is well below the average developed country in raw environmental impact? It's more fair to use a per capita metric rather than per country. Not only does the average person in developed countries consume far more, they also use much more goods manufactured from places like India and China. So they're just outsourcing their environmental impact.
    - wtcactus 2y ago
      The very first thing to do, is to not take money from people on developed countries to give to India. A wealth transfer should only go to developing countries that are improving their environmental impact, never to countries like India that are constantly doing worst. Then, to look at CO2 emissions per land area. Which should be the fairest way of measuring the countries that are actually doing good, instead of rewarding high birthrates that only make the environmental problem worst.

rdm_blackhole 2y ago

I don't mean this in bad way but these COP conferences really don't make sense. Each time we have the leaders on every country saying that this time for real they are going to stick with the plan and lower their emissions. Yet according to this link: https://climateactiontracker.org/publications/the-climate-crisis-worsens-the-warming-outlook-stagnates/ https://climateactiontracker.org/publications/the-climate-cr... The progress on the already agreed targets has been lacking. It's like having a meeting about a project whose deadline was 3 weeks ago and having your team tell you that the new deadline 2 days from now will for sure be met this time. Countries keep agreeing to new targets that are even more ambitious than the previous unmet targets. It's not as if just publishing the new targets will make the old targets much more achievable. Make it make sense.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
brabel 2y ago
There's pressure from your peers to meet deadlines you have agreed upon, though some countries have the excuse that because the party in Government changes every 4 years, they didn't really agree to anything :/ What would you suggest that they should do instead of setting goals?
- elashri 2y ago
  > though some countries have the excuse that because the party in Government changes every 4 years, they didn't really agree to anything :/ I mean the agreement is between the countries and not ruling regimes/parties. I would find it hard to assume that a diplomat will say we didn't agree on anything, this was previous government to be very appealing argument. Although there are details like in the US getting back on their pledges and who can say something. But that's more of power dynamics and not actual argument. Otherwise these countries engaged in decades long agreements with many parties (even international agreements) without problems.
- rdm_blackhole 2y ago
  > There's pressure from your peers to meet deadlines you have agreed upon That is my point exactly, most countries have agreed to targets and deadlines that they have not met either through inaction or something else entirely. So what is the point of the new targets if the old targets have not been met yet? > What would you suggest that they should do instead of setting goals? How about meeting the previous targets before setting new ones? Otherwise you just loose credibility.

dfhgfhgfhgfhjk 2y ago

This whole charade is so ill conceived. Honestly, the top 20 developed nations are literally THE problem. It's a demand side problem not a supply side one. We need to stop buying container loads of virtually disposable electronics from China every week, stop driving to the shops, stop running energy intensive appliances, you get the drift. Of course if people actually did this it would tank our developed economies.

nobodywillobsrv 2y ago
I wish they (COP crowd) would talk about TFR and do rollouts under worst case scenario. Low TFR countries should continue to shrink. But high TFR countries are likely to get less poor. They are the problem. If people are truly fungible like they say, migrating low consumption people to high consumption states despite local resistance is the worst idea ever. I wish they would focus on these points.
- sabbaticaldev 2y ago
  > I wish they (COP crowd) would talk about TFR and do rollouts under worst case scenario. I wish you had defined TFR so we can understand if you are attacking poor countries or defending the riches
  - igorkraw 2y ago
    TFR is total fertility rate. GP is saying "the problem is not the overconsumption in the rich countries with low TFR, it's the poor countries with high TFR getting richer and consuming more and people migrating to countries where they consume more". Which falls apart looking at the map of highest ghg emissions https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-ghg-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-ghg-emissions vs the negative impact caused by climate change and the ability to mitigate https://gain-new.crc.nd.edu/ranking https://gain-new.crc.nd.edu/ranking . curtailing migration without massive reduction in the overconsumption by the rich countries amounts to having the poorer nations pay bills (via enduring disasters) for damage they didn't cause, which I find an injustice. Doing that and limiting economic growth and thus limiting the capability of dealing with the disasters would just be cruelty. If you want to reduce migration without injustice or cruelty, you need to make sure other countries remain livable and thrive, hence the OPs hook.

croes 2y ago

Less than half the US military budget

tjpnz 2y ago

That there were sixty-five private jets parked in Baku says much about how seriously this is being taken. https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/11/15/did-people-have-to-fly-to-cop29-private-jet-use-soared-but-one-group-got-to-baku-overland https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/11/15/did-people-have-to...

Am4TIfIsER0ppos 2y ago

Ah yes punishment for inventing the sail.

gmuslera 2y ago

"You can keep beating me but you should pay the first hospital bill". A short term mitigation but a long/middle term death sentence. That is what they were pursuing for. Maybe is all that could be obtained as things are set up, and I mean mostly about the power structures around this, including the very COPx organization.