COP30 marks the ten-year anniversary since the Paris Climate Change Agreement was passed. Delegates have been speaking about pushing this year’s COP to be the “COP of Implementation” because of the serious inaction that has been taking place since the Paris Climate Change Agreement. One of the key parts of the agreement was keeping global temperature under 1.5 degrees Celsius. Currently, we are on the cusp of 1.5 degrees Celsius and if current trends continue, this target is unachievable. This is a huge point of discussion at COP30. Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are continuously advocating for this goal to not be overlooked and undermined. From what it seems, developed countries do not seem to be too bothered by the fact that this goal is not going to be achieved. In fact, they have shifted their attention to being just below 2 degrees Celsius.
So, why is this problematic? Many SIDS cannot afford the stakes of the climate projections in regard to global temperatures rising to about 2 degrees Celsius. They are barely surviving with current climate trends as of right now. Tuvalu, in particular, gave an extremely powerful speech at a formal high-level COP30 proceeding. Their delegate said that “the 1.5 target is not just a political aspiration but an obligation”. It is a matter that needs urgent attention and need. If change continues to fail to happen, Tuvalu’s fate becomes extremely doomed. If developed countries fail to keep the 1.5 target in mind and if they continue to be greedy with their donations to the Loss and Damage Fund, the sovereign nation of Tuvalu and many other SIDS will cease to exist by 2050. That’s why action needs to take place now.
There have been several discussions and plans to implement programs for countries to provide support and aid for those that are disproportionately impacted. Developed countries have even, to a certain extent, owned up to some responsibility for the vast damage they have caused to our environment. However, plans and discussions do not mean execution by any means. We simply do not have the luxury of ten more years until our climate rises past 1.5 degrees Celsius and truly, we have achieved irreparable damage to the environment.
So, what’s the hold up? Why aren’t developed nations contributing to the Loss and Damage Fund more? After all, they are the ones that are most responsible for the state of our environment currently. There are three main points of contention for developed countries. The first being the admission of some sort of guilt and responsibility for their role in causing climate change. It could, in the future, become a highly legal problem for those countries, and they often hesitate to donate in reaction. Second being that there is a lack of practicality in the mechanisms of developing finance principles for what the fund can be used for. Developed nations can argue that it is hard to tell what a natural climatic event versus an anthropogenic-linked climate event is. So, distributing money is harder because of this struggle. Thirdly, they want to use that money to deal with issues in their own nation and prioritize their people’s needs first. Unfortunately, I do not believe any of these points are valid. The first point regarding legal responsibility is that it is merited. Consequences for actions, whether good or bad, are always going to come around one way or the other. There is no reason to hesitate on the basis of what could happen in the future, even if legal action against the countries who have largely contributed to climate change is in good regard. Millions of people are being displaced because of climatic events; the fund provides a way for them to cope with these changes, and it is important that they are addressed. The second point of contention is also invalid. At this point, every natural disaster event is linked to anthropogenic causes. Even if it follows regular weather patterns, the intensity of the storm surely is linked to anthropogenic causes. There are simply no longer any cases of natural climate variability that exist in modern society that are not linked to anthropogenic causes. Lastly, the third point of contention is, again, unfair to the people of the world. People who have done little to nothing to contribute to the emissions are facing the most amount of impact from climate change. It is a matter of moral obligation that nations put humanity first and contribute to the fund as part of their moral responsibility to the world after the position they put the rest of the world in.
COP30 must be the “COP of Implementation”. We simply do not have enough time left to reverse the damage that we have caused. I hope developed nations and developing nations are able to come together to come to a consensus that puts Mother Earth at the forefront of all of our solutions. Mother Earth needs to be protected at all costs, and we must do everything in our power to ensure that we are putting in the effort to do so.
Kanika Chaturvedi is a senior Environmental Studies major.