Following a deal at COP27 being reached on Sunday, members of the Climate Crisis Advisory Group react.
CCAG founder and chair Sir David King said:
“There are several aspects of the agreement that should be commended. Progress on loss and damage finance was essential not just for the much-needed support it will deliver but also the hope that it is the start of rebuilding trust between the global North and South. It was also pleasing to see the importance of nature-based solutions within the text of the agreement for the first time as well as some acknowledgement of the challenge that global food systems present.
“With that said, initial analysis shows that even with the commitments made and re-affirmed in Sharm El-Sheikh the world remains on track for 2.7C. By any measure, that represents a bleak future for humanity. Agreements on loss and damage, like any other support package, are only relevant if they are married with commitments that keep warming well below 1.5C. One without the other is simply no good.
“We now have a year to go until the next meeting in the UAE. Every government, company, and organisation must work together to re-double efforts in the meantime to all solutions that can help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, remove excess gasses from the atmosphere and seek to repair parts of the global system that have moved beyond their tipping points.”
Alice Hill, David M. Rubenstein senior fellow for energy and the environment at the Council on Foreign Relations and former advisor to President Obama, said:
“Creation of a loss and damage fund was long overdue. It acknowledges that climate change is killing people and destroying livelihoods. But money alone won’t end the climate crisis. To avoid cataclysmic extremes, countries, corporations, and communities must rapidly reduce their greenhouse gas pollution. That job can no longer wait.”
Professor Lavanya Rajamani, Professor of International Environmental Law at the University of Oxford, and member of the Climate Crisis Advisory Group:
"A careful reading of and between the lines of the text makes it clear that the Loss and Damage fund is not a 'climate justice' mechanism that will result in rich countries compensating vulnerable countries for the loss and damage they are increasingly suffering, because of a problem they did not create and can play little part in resolving.
“It is a mechanism that recognises their need for support but does not generate an obligation on developed countries to provide such support. Instead, it opens conversations on 'innovative' sources of financing, expanding the donor base and determining who is 'most vulnerable' and therefore deserving of support.”
Dr Arunabha Ghosh, Founder-CEO, CEEW and CCAG member:
“The success in negotiating a Loss and Damage financing facility is also an admission of the gravest failure of the COP process, namely accountability. It is a band aid when the wound cuts more deeply.
“There is no consequence for failing on targeted emissions cuts for three decades. Global emissions must reduce by 50% by 2030, but there is no opprobrium for failing to present credible plans to do so. India drew attention to sustainable lifestyles via its Lifestyle for Environment mission, but who is listening? Future COPs must focus almost exclusively on ensuring delivery and holding laggards accountable. Otherwise, the COP process will be lost and multilateralism more permanently damaged.”
Professor Johan Rockström, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and member of the Climate Crisis Advisory Group:
“While 1.5°C is a scientific necessity and potentially physically possible, COP27 shows that it is politically dead. This is a tragic but not unexpected outcome. What is most disturbing is that not enough people are bothered about the fact that the world will not afford loss and damage payments if warming is allowed to continue unabated. The world needs to cut global emissions by 50% in 7 years’ time, yet in Sharm, we still battled over whether we are phasing down or out coal and weren’t willing to talk about fossil fuels.
“The COP process is important and must continue. However, it must go through a reform. There is nothing left to negotiate - in terms of text. All is in place. Now the COP meetings must focus on delivery - reporting on progress, accountability, exchange with stakeholders, and ratcheting up plans according to scientific necessity. §
“Finally, there is a tendency of allowing these COP meetings to drift off and focus on various topical "battle grounds", like Article 6 in Bonn/Glasgow. One cannot avoid the suspicion that countries that benefit from status quo contribute to shifting the focus and creating smokescreens of debate and the impression of big action.”
Professor Mark Maslin, Professor of Earth System Science at UCL and member of the Climate Crisis Advisory Group:
“From multiple failures seen at COP27, there are several lessons that can be employed for COP28. Firstly, we need to start the negotiations now and work hard for the next 12 months so that all countries are prepared to get a clear agreement by the end of it. This will also only work if the processes are open and transparent – ensuring all countries understand what is being negotiated, and trust can finally start to be repaired.
“We must push key countries to increase their ambitions and submit improved pledges so there is a chance of sticking to the 1.5˚C limit with a focus on phasing out fossil fuels. Finally, rich nations including both high-income countries and emerging economies must contribute to adaptation funds, and a transparent and an effective Loss and Damage Facility.
“Climate justice must be at the heart of the negotiations for COP28 as money will need to be put on the table for adaptation, loss and damages, alongside a rapid ramp up of renewables.”
Professor Laura Diaz Anadon, Professor of Climate Change Policy at the University of Cambridge, and member of the Climate Crisis Advisory Group:
“It is very disappointing that the COP27 text does not mention the need to phase out fossil fuels, but the biggest takeaway for me is the still missing and long-overdue shift from setting targets to ensuring increased policy action, implementation, verification, and learning. This should be a key area of focus in the run up to COP28.
“Although having the creation of a Loss and Damage mechanism in the final text is an important signal, the details of how it would work and how it would be funded still need to be worked out. Given that climate finance pledges made in Paris have not yet been met, there are real questions that need to be answered about credibility and trust.”
Professor Lavanya Rajamani, Professor of International Environmental Law at the University of Oxford, and member of the Climate Crisis Advisory Group:
"A careful reading of and between the lines of the text makes it clear that the Loss and Damage fund is not a 'climate justice' mechanism that will result in rich countries compensating vulnerable countries for the loss and damage they are increasingly suffering, because of a problem they did not create and can play little part in resolving.
“It is a mechanism that recognises their need for support but does not generate an obligation on developed countries to provide such support. Instead, it opens conversations on 'innovative' sources of financing, expanding the donor base and determining who is 'most vulnerable' and therefore deserving of support.”
%20(3).png)
