International climate talks have entered the final day of talks with the chance of a deal still looming.
The meeting of the United Nations on Climate Change (COP27) in Egypt is expected to pass from Friday to the end of the week, where rich and developing countries are at risk of creating a fund for countries damaged by global warming.
Egypt’s president on Friday morning released a new, smaller version of a larger document after a 20-page document released the previous day was criticized for being too long, vague and confusing.
Among the most controversial topics was the European Union’s proposal to provide compensation for climate disasters and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which were the main issues at the meeting.
Two measures from the 27 EU countries will result in more income for poor countries and for all countries to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as well as to eliminate all fuels, including natural gas and oil. .
EU climate chief Frans Timmermans said the bloc’s decision on loss and damage mitigation is a “last resort” that requires “unanimity” between countries.
In the discussion of climate, loss and damage refers to the idea that rich countries, which have been the main contributors to climate change, should pay for the developing countries that are most affected.
Mitigation refers to efforts to reduce global warming, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Mr Timmermans said he was “encouraged” by the latest action and demands and is expected on Friday.
“This means there is no failure here,” he said. “We cannot afford to fail. Now, if our progressive movements are not reversed, then obviously there will be failure. But I believe we can avoid that.”
‘There is no money in the world’
Germany’s foreign minister said the European Union is interested in providing climate justice to poor countries suffering from global warming, and encouraging other polluters to shut down or shut down when it comes to providing financial aid to those in need.
“We are confirming that Europe is on the side of the most vulnerable countries,” German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said. “Some can now show their side. The use of money is not an end in itself, but seeks to ensure justice.”
Baerbock agreed that the developed countries that “are responsible for global warming up to now must also pay for damages and losses as a matter of priority”.
But he warned that not including major polluters and not forcing them to reduce their emissions “could be the wrong kind of incentive”.
Baerbock added that unless emissions are significantly reduced, “there is no money in the world that will pay for the damages and future damages”.
Some of the major players were putting their positions after being handed over by the EU. COP27 actions should be made with support from nearly 200 countries in the negotiations.
China, which has remained silent on most of the talks, and Saudi Arabia both said the money lost and wasted should not come from them. Developed countries should follow the law, China said.
Both sides also stressed that the 2015 Paris Agreement, which aims to limit global warming to 1.5 Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) should not be changed.
As for the United States, there was “deafening silence” after the EU announced its plans, said Preety Bhandari, senior climate economist at the World Resources Institute.
“So I think overnight and during the day there will be a lot of diplomatic discussions in different parties to help us sort out the lost and wasted money here at COP27.”
‘To be ashamed’
Loss and damage have been prominent in the climate talks that started two weeks ago. Poor countries facing the brunt of climate change, from rising sea levels to floods, have been rallying, blaming the worst for greenhouse gas emissions.
Hours before the EU’s intervention, COP27 President Sameh Shoukry – Egypt’s foreign minister – told reporters that countries are “afraid to take difficult political decisions”.
The UN Climate Council also published a proposal for economic loss and damage late Thursday, but the three measures that delegates should consider did not reflect the EU’s demands.
The first option suggests setting up a new fund for climate-vulnerable countries. The second seeks to delay a decision on the fund until next year’s COP28 meeting. The third requires us to decide on financial arrangements at COP28, not to mention a new fund.
Climate-affected countries insist they cannot wait another year for a fund to be set up to pay compensation.