In a significant international development, India spoke up for the Global South following the abrupt announcement of a revised text on the revised Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), amid massive applause. The developed nations were able to impose an agreement at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29) summit in Baku, Azerbaijan pledging to contribute only $300 billion annually, starting in 2035, while completely disregarding the demands of the developing countries for the mobilization of at least 1.3 trillion dollars annually in climate finance, early on 24th November.
The agreement at the UN talks on climate change enhanced the amount of money wealthy historical emitters will contribute to poorer nations in their attempts to adapt to global warming and transform to greener energy. A new climate finance package of a pitiful USD 300 billion per year by 2035 was accepted at the UN climate summit, replacing the USD 100 billion commitment made in 2009. However, the amount is a significant departure from the $1.3 trillion that the Global South has been asking for during the last three years of climate change negotiations.
Meanwhile, India was the first to reject the decision as it did not represent the priorities of the Global South and termed the amount “abysmally poor” and “paltry” in an unusually indignant statement following the accord, which was adopted without allowing nations to intervene. “India does not accept the goal proposal in its present form. The amount that is proposed to be mobilised is abysmally poor. It is a paltry sum. It is not something that will enable conducive climate action that is necessary for the survival of our country,” expressed Chandni Raina, Adviser, Department of Economic Affairs and part of India’s negotiating team. She declared, “Estimates tell us that we need at least USD 1.3 trillion per year by 2030.”
India declared that it does not accept the new climate finance package in its current shape and that it is “too little and too distant” with an annual budget of only $300 billion by 2035. It stressed that the developed nations, who have historically contributed the majority of the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change, must help low-income and developing economies adapt to a warming world by offering them financial, technological and capacity-building assistance.
The adoption process was described as “unfair” and “stage-managed” by India, which contended that it demonstrated a concerning lack of faith in the UN system. It further complained that its plea to be heard before the package’s adoption was disregarded. “In continuation of several such incidents of not following inclusivity, not respecting country positions. We had informed the Presidency (host country Azerbaijan), and we had informed the Secretariat (of UN Climate Change) that we wanted to make a statement before any decision on the adoption. However, and this is for everyone to see, this has been stage-managed and we are extremely, extremely disappointed with this incident. We object to this unfair means followed for adoption.” she voiced as delegates from developing nations and several civil society representatives in the hall erupted in cheers.
“We object to this unfair means of adoption. We are faced with one of the biggest challenges of all time which will determine our existence. The only thing that enables us to move beyond and take action in line with addressing this challenge is collaboration and trust among us. It is a fact that both have not worked today. We are extremely hurt by this action of the Presidency and the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) Secretariat,” Chandni Raina maintained.
She further reiterated, “I am sorry we are not happy, we are very unhappy and disappointed with the process and object to the adoption of this agenda” and highlighted, “$300 billion does not meet the needs and priorities of developing countries. It is incompatible with the principle of CBDR (Common but Differentiated Responsibilities) and equity, regardless of the battle with the impact of climate change.” She also noted that the result amply illustrated how unwilling industrialized nations are to comply with their obligations.
She pointed out that developing nations are being pressured to switch to low-carbon routes, even at the expense of their economic development, because they are the ones most affected by climate change. Chandni Raina underlined that rich nations are imposing unilateral policies on them, like the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, which hinders the transition. She stated that the decision will have a significant impact on the developing world’s growth and objectives for climate goals, as well as its capacity to adapt to climate change.
Chandni Raina mentioned, “We are extremely disappointed. Trust is the basis for all action and this incident is indicative of a lack of trust. This is also a lack of collaboration on an issue that is faced as a global challenge by all of us, most of all the developing countries that are not responsible for it. But, we have seen what you have done. Gavelling and trying to ignore parties from speaking does not behove the UNFCCC’s system and we would want you to hear us and also hear our objections to this adoption.”
The agreement will remain as one of the outcomes of this conference notwithstanding the protests that occurred after it was adopted, unless it is modified at a later meeting, which is highly doubtful. India maintained that the proposition’s emphasis on private and multilateral sources absolves richer nations, who have historically been held more liable for greenhouse gas emissions.
Chandni Raina added that measuring the amount of money raised through Multilateral Development Banks is a diversion of responsibility onto developing nations rather than a move forward from the prior $100 billion target. She reminded that a commitment of $100 billion annually by 2020 was made in 2009, but it was only fulfilled in 2020 with loans accounting for around 70% of the total amount.
Other developing nations supported India, even though COP29 President Mukhtar Babayev only stated that her remarks would be recorded. India’s protest was also backed by the Like Minded Developing Countries (LMDC), a group of developing nations while wealthy countries remained steadfast in their belief that the pact was revolutionary. Importantly, the critique is indicative of greater dissatisfaction among developing countries, many of which believe that their opinions are being ignored in climate talks.
Similar to India, Nigeria, Malawi and Bolivia conveyed that the proposed target does not adhere to the Paris Agreement’s principles of equity but differentiated responsibilities. Nigeria even labelled the proposal as a “joke.”
According to a senior official from the Ministry of Finance, the agreement was unsatisfactory and the narrative of triple climate funding is a joke when inflation is included. The decision makes the 1.5°C temperature target unachievable, per Vaibhav Chaturvedi of the Council on Energy, Environment and Water, because mitigation initiatives cannot be successful without sufficient financial and technological assistance.
Civil society organizations also slammed and rejected the NCQG draft. Harjeet Singh, Global Engagement Director, Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative observed, “At COP29, developed nations once again coerced developing countries into accepting a financial deal woefully inadequate to address the gravity of our global climate crisis. The deal fails to provide the critical support required for developing countries to transition swiftly from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy systems, or to prepare for the devastating impacts of the climate crisis, leaving them severely under-resourced. The outcome offers false hope to those already bearing the brunt of climate disasters and abandons vulnerable communities and nations, leaving them to face these immense challenges alone. We must persist in our fight, demanding a significant increase in financing and holding developed countries to account for delivering real, impactful actions.”
Interestingly, China, the largest and most powerful developing country, did not speak and silently endorsed the proposal. The agreement text, which was released following exhausting, mind-numbing talks that lasted an additional day, claimed that nations will raise a total of $300 billion annually by 2035 from a wide range of public and private, bilateral and multilateral, as well as alternative sources.
Notably, the European Union and the United States had pushed to expand the donor base to include nations like Saudi Arabia and China, which are already wealthy but are still classified as developing. China, the second-largest economy in the world and the largest producer of greenhouse emissions, has adamantly refused to alter its standing, pointing out that it already offers bilateral assistance.
How industrial revolution cost the environment and West’s duplicity
The wealthy nations, particularly the dominant West, did not only gain their economic dominance by colonization, the exploitation of other nations, or slavery but also by severely harming the environment in the name of industrial revolution, which transformed its financial system. Britain started the Industrial Revolution (late 18th to early 19th centuries) which swiftly made it the most powerful commercial country in the world. What began in Britain soon extended to North America and Europe. Manufacturing methods were drastically altered during this time as industries swiftly switched from human labor to machine-based output. This change laid the groundwork for the modern industrialized world by enabling mass manufacturing, boosting efficiency and speeding economic expansion.
The massive amounts of energy needed to power the heavy machinery that was essential to industrialization came mostly from fossil fuels like coal. This dependence on fossil fuels resulted in dangerous environmental contamination and a dramatic rise in carbon emissions. In addition to emissions, the depletion of natural resources, urban overcrowding, water contamination and environmental deterioration were all influenced by industrialization. Therefore, even though these developments increased production, they had significant negative effects on society and the environment.
The First Industrial Revolution transformed an agrarian society through mechanization and the use of steam power, leading to extensive coal burning. Often called the Technological Revolution, the Second Industrial Revolution (late 19th to early 20th centuries) brought the internal combustion engine, steel production and electricity. Mass production and the expansion of heavy industries throughout North America and Europe were fueled during this era. Rapid industrialization in nations like the United Kingdom, Germany and France resulted in exponential rises in resource extraction and energy consumption. Air pollution, deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions increased significantly as a result of each stage of industrialization, adding to the overall environmental stress.
Urbanization accelerated with the advancement of industrial revolutions. Cities like Manchester, Glasgow and Birmingham grew promptly throughout Europe to handle the expanding labour force required for manufacturing. These cities experienced significant industrialization, but pollution levels also rose. The skies were darkened by thick pollution, which was mostly caused by coal-fired industry and heating systems at home. Industrial waste was dumped into waterways like the Thames that flowed through London.
The effects on the ecosystem were dire. Carbon emissions skyrocketed as a result of the extensive usage of coal and then oil-powered machines. Overcrowding in urban areas combined with poor air quality and sanitation caused major health problems for the general people. The environment and public health suffered long-term consequences as a result of the rapid industrial growth that outpaced the capacity to control waste and pollution.
Significant environmental restrictions were not in place when these industrial revolutions occurred. Environmental sustainability suffered as a result of the emphasis on economic expansion and productivity. A pattern of excessive emissions and unrestrained resource exploitation was started at this time. Its effects on the environment, including deforestation, biodiversity loss and the ongoing increase in the production of greenhouse gases, continue to be a significant worldwide concern. The mass industrial techniques and reliance on fossil fuels that are still driving global climate change originated throughout these periods, which is where the origins of today’s environmental issue rest.
It is pertinent to remember that unlike today when even developing nations including India are exploring alternative and renewable sources of energy to minimize environmental damage, it was not the same when the West was expanding its economy with fuel-guzzling factories and without an iota of care for its negative repercussions. The West’s sole aim was to flourish its financial system and after it succeeded, it began introducing terms like global warming in the international discourse to portray itself as a protector of the environment while it repeatedly pushed proposals through its proxy institutions like the United Nations to impede the development of those impoverished countries that it had pillaged for centuries and profited from their wealth to enrich itself.
The superior mentality continues to shape its conduct as the actions clearly suggest that nations previously ruled by the former are not deserving of the same rights or any other assistance to elevate its impoverished out of the economic crises caused by the West. The West simply wants to keep things as they were, with its former colonies suffering as a result of its policies as they did in the past. Its strategy might have changed but the intention never did. As Indian historian Vijay Parshad popularly stated while slamming the West and its discriminating policies including on climate change, “Colonialism is not something that can be defeated. It is a permanent statement of mind.” The recent proposal at COP29 serves as a grim reminder of the same.
