Developing to Become Developed
Around 80% of the world’s power supply is fossil fuel generated and used almost exclusively by developing nations to rely on as their go-to for energy. Unlike developed, or industrialized countries which have the necessary resources to create options for sustainable energy.
And because of the extensive but required research and implementation costs for clean energy alternatives, such a mission becomes unaffordable for the Global South. Here are what is known as developing countries, more appropriately referred to as underdeveloped nations.
This brings up the topic of international climate finance directed towards these impoverished regions that do not have the financial resources to transition their economies to renewable energy and face the infrastructure impacts of a warming planet. Thankfully, at the recent COP 29, some headway was made when the member nations voted to triple its annual climate finance sum from $100 billion per year to $300 billion by 2035. Said sum is to be provided by a host of sources such as national governments, international organizations, and private equities.
However, many climate scholars, and certainly the impoverished nations, believe the revised amount to be attained over ten years is a band-aid to a problem that requires surgery. A difficult operation that won’t cost any amount less than $1 trillion annually - to be divided up somehow between 152 deserving nations, most of which are the recipients of a polluting environmental mess they had nothing to do with in terms of cause. And because of this, most people attending the recent November 2024 COP meeting believe the developing nations will have a tough time tackling their climate perils. This scientist is in agreement that the lower-income nations under climate siege will require trillions of dollars to adapt to a warming Earth. The first climate finance $100 billion promise was established at the 2009 COP summit and resulted in stagnated offerings. It took until 2022 to finally achieve that amount because from 2013 to 2021, only about 50% of that promise was kept. Since it took 13 years for the $100 billion goal to be finally attained, I can only imagine how long it will take to achieve three times that much, not to mention ten times.
Currently, it is the international banking system, supported by taxpayer funding, that is the most loyal supporter of these financially struggling populations. Collective efforts by governments have been averaging about $20 billion per year since 2014 - an alarming shortfall that signals the forthcoming $300 billion target is more impossible than probable. At COP 29, the carbon country victims of the wealthy nations requested $1.3 trillion annually in greenhouse gas reduction and adaptation financial aid by 2035, and less than a third was considered acceptable.
To wind up with any reasonable chance of financing environmental recovery and energy transition, the missing money has to show up in an accommodating manner from an unexpected source. At the same time, the established nations, organizations, and corporations continue to have pressing issues closer to home such as skyrocketing national debt, geopolitical conflicts, inflation, and social unrest. And it is easy for them to forget that they, historically the international industrialized sector, brought on the carbon and methane emissions in the first place. Global climate change and warming inequity were both founded by the rich countries, as well as China/India where extremely high rates of energy consumption are based. Therefore, Earth’s poorest are most susceptible to a planet that is heating up - a cruel injustice.
Fast forward to 2023, when the developing nations contributed roughly 65% of global emissions and 95% of the increase in emissions.
True?
Yes, they had no choice due to the fact these less developed nations have complex economic requirements that are expanding at a rapid pace.
For this to resonate, I must further define what developed and developing nations are.
First, the advantaged: There are about 43 developed, industrialized, wealthy, or whatever you want to call them countries that have a high level of human development, GDP, educational opportunities, healthcare standards, technology, etc. A higher quality of life. Included in this category are the U.S., Canada, England, Australia, New Zealand and France. Next, the disadvantaged: The developing, underdeveloped, or third-world, emerging nations tend to have a lower quality of life, a shorter life expectancy, and lean more towards corruption. Examples are Mexico, Iran, Iraq, Brazil, Russia, Turkey, most of Asia, all of Central and South America, Africa, India and China. They are still developing in an effort for that higher quality of life that’s missing.
Incredible - China? Even with its robust economic status, its low per capita income regions in the large rural populated areas struggle for life’s basic requirements while climate challenges are abundant. Same scenario for India. Two of the top three polluters that I doubt will receive climate funding. Therefore, since those two are considered developing nations by the UN, this category will continue to contribute mightily to greenhouse gases. An astounding 6.87 billion people, or 83% of the world’s population, do not reside in wealthy nations.
The ultimate success of climate action will be determined by how the climate-vulnerable countries are accepted for what they are by the level of financial rescue offered by the industrialized countries. Sorrowfully, the COP 29 summit witnessed another attempt by big oil and ga, to prolong fossil fuel production. Since that conference was held in an oil/gas-dependent nation, Azerbaijan, dirty energy representatives outnumbered those of the ten most climate-suffering nations combined. During the conference, that country’s president went so far as to refer to oil and gas as, “A gift from God.” This was the third year in a row that the COP was held in such a nation.
The polluting energy lobbyists had a single goal: establish themselves as false climate activists to undermine the integrity of the COP process and put fear in the minds of the Global South that bears the brunt of the global warming penalty.
On the other hand, many of the 55,000 attendees sensed a loud and clear message that B.O.G knows its future is on the brink and it must do whatever it can to postpone its eventual demise. Promising to help with the clean energy transition as long as they can divert and lessen government subsidies that are otherwise intended for the good of the less fortunate nations is another bullet in the oil company cartridge belt.
Division, discord, and debate laced between the Global wealthy North and Global vulnerable South nations were evident entirely too much during the two-week event three months ago. As we enter a fresh new year, climate funding promises for reducing polluting emissions and adapting to climate change on behalf of the poorer countries remain an uphill battle. Given the increased worldwide geopolitical uncertainty and the four-year climate-denier leadership in the second-largest polluting nation, the road to global warming action becomes tougher to navigate.
On his day of inauguration, U.S. President Denier withdrew America from the Paris Agreement. Thus, our nation joins Iran, Libya, and Yemen to separate from the only unified structure our planet has to make advancements against global warming. Without the U.S., climate finance will only become more complex.
Regardless of the roadblocks, climate action will never be deterred.
Because of the expanding environmental awareness opportunities and the clean energy advancements created by the planet’s private sector, I believe a year from now we'll be counting all the new antipollution achievements made by that climate-loyal body of humanity you and I know are determined to succeed. No obstacle will stand in their way.