After weeks of discussions between numerous countries, the UN Climate Summit has finally come to an end with a deal on how to combat global warming. Nations have finally come to an understanding on the historic Loss and Damage Fund. This will aid in covering the costs of the harm that a warming planet is causing, particularly to developing nations. 

major victory for the less developed nations, who have long lobbied for funding.

 The fact that they frequently experience the effects of climate change, such as 

floods, droughts, heat waves, famines, and storms, but have made relatively little contribution to the pollution that warms the planet, is sometimes seen as compensation.

The money would help nations experiencing the effects of climate change, such as 

Pakistan, where floods last year cost almost $30 billion in damage, or Somalia, where more than 7 million people are going hungry due to persistent drought.

Floods in Pakitan caused severe damage this year

agree to establish a fund to compensate the weaker countries suffering the burden of climate change after days of deadlock.

 These discussions have taken up most of the last two weeks. 

Delegates must still vote on the idea, which defers the crucial issue of which nations would contribute to the new fund until the UN climate summit of the following year.

Many nations are expressing support for this pact

, and as of now, I haven't heard any express opposition. The money from this fund, which would be formed to cover loss and damage, would then be distributed to nations that required it in the wake of climatic disasters. 

Poor, climate-vulnerable nations are in need of such funding, and many of them are showing their support by expressing the view that this fund gives hope. But for the following year, the specifics will need to be worked out. 

And the most crucial one is where the funding will come from.

China is one of the top polluters in the world

How will the fund work? What is its nature?

It is not the goal of creating a fund to distribute charity. It is obvious that it represents a portion of the larger investment in our shared futures. It serves as a down payment and climate investment. 

But instead of celebrating that success, severe warnings were sent. While praising the fund, Antonio Guterres, the head of the UN, noted that greater climate ambition is still required.

"But let's be clear our planet is still in the emergency room. We need to drastically reduce emissions now, and this is an issue this cop did not address. A fund for loss and damage is essential, but it's not an answer. If the climate crisis washes a small island state off the bat or an entire African country to the desert, we all still need a giant leap in climate ambition".

Antonio Guterres expressed his remarks on the loss and damages fund

Mitigation is one of the buzzwords at COP 27

The major issue that requires agreement is mitigation. That's one of the COP 27 keywords, then. In essence, it refers to cutting emissions. 

As a result, the language in the draft text at this time is nearly identical to that from Glasgow last year, and it does not call for a reduction in emissions to maintain global warming to 1.5 degrees or less. 

two degrees of warming would be very different from 1.5 degrees

The coral reefs would disappear. Droughts would affect 60 million extra people, making them hungry and forced to look for water. Flooding along the shore would affect 12 million more people

The overall picture is how much warmer it will be at the turn of the century. We are therefore looking at a differential of 0.5 degrees. 

People living around coastlines who are experiencing drought and more intense heat waves will be impacted by this.

Even a 0.5-degree difference can lead to serious disasters such as droughts

Some countries were left unhappy by the summit

Several governments were frustrated by the summit's failure to advocate for more aggressive emission reductions. Some delegates struggled to find reasons to be happy about the glacial pace of decarbonization because little progress was achieved on taking extra steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions. 

Calls to phase out fossil fuels were rebuffed by oil-producing governments.

 Furthermore, climate scientists and experts have cautioned that stronger action and sharper goals are required to minimise global warming because governments have not yet committed to phasing out or even reducing their use of all fossil fuels.

Oil-producing nations have rebuffed calls for phasing out of fossil fuels

This is the decade that will make or break us, yet the progress that is now being made for both people and the environment is insufficient. 

Major emitters are not making enough additional efforts to increase and accelerate their carbon reductions. 

It does not increase our level of confidence that we will fulfil the promises made in Glasgow last year and under the Paris Agreement. 

The vast discrepancy between climate research and our climate policies is not addressed.

damage in Amazon will be significantly reduced

 is the world's leading producer of renewable energy, 

producing 82% of the solar panels used worldwide in 2017

India's Prime Minister Modi is promoting and launching new solar initiatives every day.

 The political economy is therefore quite active, but the diplomatic process is sluggish.

Prime Minister Modi launched the International Solar Alliance to promote solar power in the world

seemed like it was a last-ditch effort to save face after COP 27 produced no tangible results.

 The entire globe was waiting for a significant result. After two additional days of discussions, you finally had the creation of this fund. 

For a very long time, developing countries have maintained that since they are small and developing, they have not made a significant contribution to the global climate catastrophe. 

North America and Europe are primarily to blame for the current climate disaster. They should thus be compelled to pay.

The US is one of the top polluters in the world, alongside China

However, there is no money in the fund, it is not capitalised, and it is 

quite improbable that Europe and North America will contribute even a small portion of the required sum to this fund.

 The political principle, in my opinion, is pretty obvious. This is a 

reimbursement to less developed nations for the issues and crises that Europe and North America generated, not a charitable act.

Therefore, they should make good on the harm. 

The flood that hit Pakistan this year cost the country a great deal, and the people of Somalia are paying a great price due to the starvation and drought there.

Thus, the expense of the damage should be shared by Europe and North America. However, there isn't a certain point in the wording, and the way it will work isn't decided. 

Therefore, emerging countries should persist in their efforts.

COP 27 historic deal; Is it a hit or a miss?

0 Comments