• The COP29 climate meeting in Baku ended in disappointment. On the main issue of finance, developed countries agreed to mobilise only $300 billion for the developing nations every year, a three-times increase over their current mandate of $100 billion but way short of at least $1 trillion that all assessments said was required. Even this nominal scale-up — the needs already run in trillions of dollars — is not supposed to happen immediately but only from 2035.
• This is not the first time that the annual climate conference has produced a disappointing outcome. Each one of them in the last 15 years has delivered much below expectations. As a result, the discussions and outcomes of these summits have been almost completely delinked from the requirements of meeting the temperature targets mentioned in the 2015 Paris Agreement. While science says that the world needs to cut its emissions by at least 43% by 2030 from 2019 levels, all assessments of current actions estimate that global emissions, even in the best-case scenarios, would be barely 2% down by that time.
• The underwhelming deal on climate finance reached in Baku might just be the beginning of the unravelling of the climate talks.

Inherently unstable

• It is not a surprise that the current international arrangement on climate change has turned out to be this ineffective. It is the only major multilateral system which is completely aligned against the rich and powerful nations. Usually, the rules of any international forum reflect the prevailing power balance, and are mostly in favour of the powerful, as they are the ones who decide on the rules. The climate change architecture, as represented by the 1994 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), goes completely against this norm.
• In this system, the rich and the powerful — a group of about 40 including the United States and most of Europe — are the main culprits for causing climate change, and the rules are stacked heavily against them. They have been made solely responsible for cutting their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and also for providing money and technologies to the developing countries to help them fight climate change.
• These responsibilities were fixed largely in line with the “polluter pays” principle. Since the developed countries were mainly responsible for emitting GHGs over the last 150 years, it was only fitting that they be asked to take responsibility for cleaning it up.
• However, equity and fairness are rarely the main drivers of international relations. How this climate structure was allowed to be built up, with the rich and developed countries fully participating in the process, is an interesting and intriguing question that has not yet been settled definitively.
• It was not before the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the precursor to the Paris Agreement, was finalised that the developed world realised that this system could hurt their interests and disrupt the prevailing global power balance. The Kyoto Protocol took forward the principles enshrined in the UNFCCC and assigned specific targets to each of the developed nations in accordance with their “guilt”. The targets were to be fulfilled in a specific time frame, failing which they could be penalised.
• It is probably the only instance of such an inherently unstable multilateral system which is so completely at odds with the global power structure being created.

Dismantling begins

• The efforts to dismantle the system began immediately after the Kyoto Protocol came into effect in 2005 after the requisite number of ratifications. Although the US played a key role in finalising the Kyoto Protocol, the country never ratified it.
• The idea was to tear down the structure brick by brick, not in one go. The crucial differentiation between the developed and developing countries in the assignment of climate responsibilities was repeatedly targeted. This was done to ensure that the failure to meet targets could not be blamed only on the developed nations and instead be shared with everyone.
• The first attempt to replace the Kyoto Protocol with a new agreement was made in Copenhagen in 2009 but it failed. Developed countries worked for another six years and succeeded in Paris. But even while it was in force, till 2020, Kyoto Protocol targets were completely ignored by all the developed countries. Many of them walked out of the Kyoto Protocol.
• The Paris Agreement made fundamental changes to the way climate responsibilities were structured till then. Emission cuts were not the sole responsibility of the developed countries any longer. Everyone had to “contribute” though in a “nationally-determined” manner. There were no assigned targets for developed countries, their emission cuts also had to be “nationally-determined”, meaning decided by themselves.

Emission cuts inadequate

• As a result, emission cuts have been nowhere close to what is required. The European Union is expected to cut its emissions by around 60% from 2019 levels by 2030 but that is about it. Donald Trump is the favourite whipping boy on climate change issue, but even without him the US has been the biggest laggard. Despite the much-touted Inflation Reduction Act, brought in by Joe Biden administration, the US is only aiming for a 50-52% cut by 2030 from 2005 levels, which translates to about 45% from 2019 levels.
• If the world as a whole has to reduce its emissions by 43% by 2030 from 2019 levels, equity and fairness demand that the US and EU should have been aiming for about 80-90% reductions.
• The sharp distinction between developed and developing countries on emission cuts was broken by the Paris Agreement. But developed countries were still solely responsible for mobilising finance and transfer of clean energy technologies. These are also getting targeted.

Dilution of finance responsibility

• The developed countries argue that the scale of finance requirements has increased manifold, and many other countries have grown rich in the last two decades, so they must also be asked to contribute to climate finance. The first attempt to expand the contributor base happened in Paris itself but did not succeed.
• In Baku this year, expansion of contributor base was one of the core issues being discussed as part of the finance negotiations, and some criteria for roping in more countries were suggested. But the developing countries managed to thwart it again. Essentially, China, which was a target of the expansion effort, put its foot down.
• In the bargain, the developed countries limited the quantum of climate finance to be raised by them — $300 billion and no more.
• The dismantling of the international climate structure has been a continuous process. The dilutions on emissions cuts and finance are just two examples. Erosion has been across the board, leading to a steady decline in trust of the developing countries.
• But it is still the only multilateral forum where tiny countries like Tuvalu or Marshall Islands have a voice, and an influential one at that. These countries also benefit from some climate money flowing to them. It is not enough but better than nothing at all.
• The climate talks would possibly continue to have some limited utility for some more time, but its effectiveness as a global forum to fight climate change is severely diminished.