US election uncertainty clouds UN climate finance progress
2024.09.22 11:37
(This Sept. 21 story has been refiled to add the word ‘historical’ in paragraph 2)
By Valerie Volcovici and Kate Abnett
(Reuters) – Countries have a chance to use this week’s U.N. meetings in New York to resolve big differences over boosting the world’s annual goal for climate finance, but uncertainty over the U.S. election could jeopardize progress ahead of the next U.N. climate summit in November.
Negotiators told Reuters that countries were reluctant to stake out their positions before knowing who might win the Nov. 5 U.S. presidential vote and be setting climate policy for the world’s largest economy – and biggest historical polluter – for the next four years.
But by waiting until November for that answer, countries could be risking the chance of reaching a new deal before the world’s current $100 billion financing pledge expires at the end of this year, the negotiators and observers warned.
“The elections are in the calculus” of global climate talks, said finance negotiator Michai Robertson of the Alliance of Small Island States.
Governments are analyzing different scenarios for possible wins by Vice President Kamala Harris, who along with President Joe Biden helped pass the biggest domestic climate spending bill in U.S. history, or by former President Donald Trump, a climate denier who wants to boost fossil fuels. They’re also considering a third scenario with the U.S. in limbo for months over an uncertain or delayed election result.
“It’s an unspoken understanding that U.S. election uncertainty is affecting how countries are positioning,” Robertson said. While some wealthy countries have said they’d offer more money – they aren’t saying how much more and instead want to “wait to see what direction the U.S. will go.”
TRICKY TARGET
This week’s U.N. General Assembly marks the last all-country gathering before the COP29 climate summit begins on Nov. 11 in Baku, Azerbaijan – less than a week after the U.S. vote.
But agreeing on a new target, and whether to expand the donor base, is proving tricky. A target too high could mean countries again fail to meet the full amount, which would likely sow tension and mistrust among the developing countries relying on these funds.
A target too low would leave too many vulnerable and underserved as global warming continues to escalate. U.N. climate agency chief Simon Stiell has estimated the annual need to be in the trillions in order to adequately help poorer countries shift to clean energy and prepare for the conditions of a warmer world.
Failing to set a new target before the start of 2025 could jeopardize future climate negotiations, warned a senior official with Azerbaijan’s COP29 presidency.
Azerbaijan doesn’t even want to consider the possibility of failure, the COP29 official told Reuters.
DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS
Regardless of who wins the U.S. vote, this year’s U.S. climate negotiators are already limited in what they can pledge, although a Harris presidency would ensure more continuity.
“Negotiators work for the current administration, not a future one,” noted Jonathan Pershing, a former U.S. delegate who helped lead the country’s talks at the Paris climate summit in 2015.
As candidate for president, Harris has said she supports Biden’s climate negotiating positions, including a pledge at last year’s COP28 in Dubai to contribute $3 billion to the global Green Climate Fund.
Neither Biden nor Harris have offered a new finance target, but U.S. negotiators have said that fast-growing economies such as China or Gulf oil-producing nations should contribute funds. In the past, China and some Gulf states have said they should be exempt as developing nations.
Trump, on the other hand, has vowed to again withdraw from the Paris Agreement, as well as from the overarching U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change that runs global climate efforts and negotiations among its 198 member states. Only a handful of countries have shunned the UNFCCC, including Iran, Libya and Yemen.
MARRAKESH SURPRISE
Given that U.S. elections and U.N. climate summits both fall in November, this year’s election uncertainty is hardly unique.
The contested 2000 U.S. election coincided with a climate summit that reached no agreement that year, pushing their talks into a special session held five months later in Bonn, Germany.
The next big upset came just a year after the historic Paris Agreement was signed, when U.S. climate negotiators were caught off guard at the U.N. summit in Marrakesh with Trump’s defeat of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the presidency.
“The U.S. delegation there was shattered, and negotiators were left scrambling,” said Alden Meyer, a senior associate at climate think tank E3G, who has attended every COP.
This year is different, though. There is new urgency in the climate fight, negotiators said, as rising global temperatures are already triggering climate disasters and extremes.
Climate negotiators are also preparing themselves better for unexpected outcomes, said sustainable finance director Paul Bodnar with the Bezos Earth Fund who previously served as a U.S. negotiator under former President Barack Obama.
“The difference between now and 2016 is that it was a big surprise in 2016,” he said. After the Trump administration pulled back from the global climate effort, Bodnar built an alliance among the U.S. states and cities stepping up to keep a strong U.S. presence in global climate talks.
