Key COP28 Issues - Part 2: Loss

The second main issue raised as key to COP28 by the U.S. negotiations team during an October 2023 briefing was Loss and Damage.

For many years, developing countries (the Global South) have argued that developed or industrialized countries (i.e., those that have contributed greenhouse gases to the atmosphere for decades) should provide compensation for the negative impacts that climate change is having on them. Countries that have contributed the least to this global problem are often experiencing serious impacts, yet they have the least resources to deal with the damage. 

This carbon inequality has been addressed by Oxfam International, including the most recent information shared (2023):

• The world's richest 10% of people were responsible for more than half of the carbon added to the atmosphere between 1990 and 2105.
• In those 25 years alone, they blew one third of our remaining global 1.5C carbon budget, compared to just 4 percent for the poorest half of the population.
• The richest 1% of the world's population were responsible for more than twice as much carbon pollution as the 3.1 billion people who made up the poorest half of humanity.
• It took about 140 years to use 750G of the global carbon budget, and just 25 years from 1990 to 2015 to use about the same again -- over half of which is linked to the consumption of just the richest 10% of the people.
• The per capita consumption footprints of the richest 1% are currently around 35 times higher than the target for 2030 and more than 100 times higher than the poorest 50%.

If you are a visual learner:

From Oxfam International, 2023

Another way to illustrate the inequalities and social justice issues related to climate change is through maps referred to as griddled cartograms. Here is one example in which the size of the country is drawn in proportion to either the cumulative carbon dioxide gas emissions or the severity of certain climaet change health consequences: 

Data-driven cartogram maps demonstrating (A) relative proportions of cumulative carbon dioxide emissions, by country, and (B) magnitude and severity of the consequences of climate change for malaria, malnutrition, diarrhea, and drownings, by country.
(From Patz JA, Gibbs HK, Foley JA, et al. Climate change and global health: quantifying a growing ethical crisis. EcoHealth. 2007; doi.10.1007/s10393-007-0141-1. See here.)

Please stop to think about these statistics related to fossil fuel use and who has/hasn't benefitted from this resource. Also think about the disparate negative impacts of that use in terms of air pollution and climate change impacts that go far beyond health.

Pardon a diversion as I provide some historical context:

In the 1700's, the English realized that coal burned hotter than wood charcoal. The U.S. has a significant amount of the world reserves of coal, and this fuel played a significant role in launching the Industrial Revolution in our country. The first oil well in North America was drilled in Ontario Canada in 1858, and in 1859, oil was discovered near Titusville, Pennsylvania. Crude oil was known long before, but discoveries of large oil reserves in the U.S. and the introduction of the internal combustion engine (and use in automobiles) in the early twentieth century led to a rapid growth of the petroleum industry. The idea of fracturing (fracking) to release gas from geological formations also dates back to the mid 1800's, but the technologies developed by Halliburton revolutionized the industry for natural gas extraction.

As a resident of Pennsylvania, I think about its history of fossil fuels. The Commonwealth has abundant sources of high quality coal, oil and natural gas, so there is a long history of mining, refining, and fracking. In fact, Pennsylvania is the leading East Coast supplier of fossil fuels, refined petroleum products, and electricity to the nation. (See here.) As noted in that reference, "the state is among the top 10 consumers of natural gas, coal, petroleum products, and electricity" and is "the second-largest net supplier of energy to other states, after Texas." There is also a long legacy of steel production in Pennsylvania and a significant cement industry (another major source of carbon dioxide release). In other words, my home state has a very high carbon footprint and has contributed to global greenhouse gases for a very long time. 

So back to the idea of Loss and Damage:

Article 8 of the 2015 Paris Agreement recognized the issue of loss and damage but did't require or even compel countries to pay for it. Debates have centered on whether countries in the Global North that have long prospered from the use of fossil fuels (which, when burned, produce carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas) are liable for damage elsewhere in the world, and if so, what is the best way to provide retribution. Should a country like the United States pay into a fund that is used to cover loss and damage? If so, what is an appropriate amount to pay? What are the criteria for accessing this fund, who should manage the fund and decision making, and how much due developed nations owe? Alternatively, should a global insurance plan or risk-sharing approach (mentioned in this article from Forbes) be developed? This alternative model doesn’t necessary focus on reparations (i.e., doesn’t place blame), but helps to cover loss and damage.

You can find a good guide to Loss and Damage here. 

The Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage was launched under the UNFCCC at COP19 in 2013. At COP27 in Sharm el-Sheik, Egypt in 2022, Parties finally agreed to set up a fund. Ambitious pre-COP28 negotiations building on a decade of work and advocacy led to a surprising decision (agreement) on this agenda item (a Loss and Damage Fund) on day 1 of COP28. On that day, wealthy nations pledged to contribute at least $260 million to the fund, surpassing the minimum threshold of $200 million required to launch the fund. At the end of week 1 of COP28, the fund had reached US $700 million, but this is less than 0.2% of the economic and non-economic losses that developing countries face annual from climate change.

The climate change impacts are not just being experienced by developing countries. A March 14, 2023 briefing from the White House noted the following economic impact of climate and weather disasters from 2022: 

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), "the cost of climate and weather disasters in the United States last year totaled more than $165 billion—the third most costly year on record" and "this cost fails to capture the devastation from lives lost, the toll on our healthcare, and the impacts on American families and communities upended and displaced by increasing climate crises."

Severe heat waves, coastal flooding and other sea-level rise damage such as salt water intrusion into fresh water supplies, wildfires, crop loss, and natural disasters (think stronger hurricanes) are all exacerbated by climate change. Continued warming will lead to further increases in disaster risk and rising costs of the associated damage. 

Once the Loss and Damage fund agenda item was approved at COP28, country pledges were quickly announced. Here are some pledges to date (from Earth.org): 

•  United Arab Emirates: $100 million
• Germany: $100 million
• United Kingdom: $50 million
• Japan: $10 million
• United States: $17.5 million*
• Denmark: $50 million
• Ireland: $27 million
• European Union: $27 million
• Norway: $25 million
• Canada: $12 million
• Slovenia: $1.5 million

*The U.S. historically has emitted the highest amount of greenhouse gases.

This fund is separate from other funds under the UNFCCC that help developing nations tackle climate-related challenges. It is estimated that at least $400 billion per year is needed -- a number far greater than public funding from developed nations could ever provide. 

There are still logistical details associated with the Loss and Damage fund to be worked out such as what will be the scope of the loss or damage covered, who will be the beneficiaries (i.e., who are the particularly vulnerable countries to prioritize), and how can you attribute an event to climate change? For a provisional period, this will be overseen by the World Bank but there will be a dedicated board for decision making and other measures that helped to appease countries from the Global South that didn’t want this fund administered by either the IMF or the World Bank. Ultimately, the details of who funds this long-term will need to be determined.