Does the wild-west of Climate Finance need binding commitments?

As climate disasters grow in frequency and intensity, the global stage is grappling with a polarizing question: “Who should bear the burden of climate finance?” Developing countries require trillions—not just billions—to transition to low-carbon economies and build resilience against climate impacts. Yet, the financial contributions from the wealthiest nations remain woefully inadequate, exposing a glaring disparity between rhetoric and action.

The need for Climate Finance: A reality check

Climate finance has two key goals:

1.Mitigation: Transitioning to clean energy systems to curb emissions.

2.Adaptation: Helping vulnerable nations prepare for unavoidable climate impacts.

The $100 billion annual target pledged by developed nations in 2009 was supposed to be a floor, not a ceiling. Yet, this commitment has consistently fallen short, with actual disbursements barely scratching $83 billion in 2020—and much of this delivered as loans, not grants. Let’s be clear: loans do not represent reparations for a crisis disproportionately created by wealthy nations.

If the world indeed aims for climate justice, we need $5.8 trillion by 2030 just to support developing countries’ clean energy transitions.

So, where is that money going to come from? And how do we determine it?

Historical responsibility vs. current capacity: A fractured framework

This debate hinges on two core principles:

1.Historical responsibility: Developed nations are responsible for 79% of historical emissions since the industrial era. Their economies were built on the backbone of carbon-intensive growth. This moral obligation cannot be ignored.

2. Current capacity: Emerging economies like China, India, and Brazil are now significant emitters. However, their per capita emissions are still a fraction of those in wealthy nations. For instance, the U.S. emits 14.2 tons of CO? per capita, compared to India’s 1.9 tons.

So, let’s not conflate historical culpability with current growth needs. The developed world must step up without expecting the developing and vulnerable countries to embrace a disproportionate share of the burden.

Are there broken promises of Climate Finance?

The existing system of climate finance is riddled with inefficiencies and inequities:

? Lack of agreed definition: What qualifies as “climate finance”? Some funds are dubiously classified, like investments even in natural gas projects.

? Over-reliance on loans: Over 70% of climate finance flows as debt. For countries already burdened by $1 trillion in external debt, this is not assistance—it’s exploitation.

? Donor interests first: Many funds are tied to donor-driven priorities, often benefitting the wealthy nations that provide them. For example, less than 10% of climate finance directly addresses adaptation needs despite their urgency in vulnerable countries.

? Pledged abound, with unspent funds: The Green Climate Fund, touted as a game-changer, has seen pledges far outstrip actual disbursements.

This “wild west” of climate finance is neither transparent nor effective, and a reimagined system is long overdue.

Climate reparations aren’t charity

Let’s stop framing climate finance as charity or goodwill. It’s reparations—recognising the harm caused by industrialised nations’ unchecked emissions.

To call it anything less is to suck consequences out of historical facts. Let's look at the key segments of climate finance.

1.Private sector responsibility: The world’s largest corporations, many of which generate more emissions than entire nations, must contribute meaningfully. For instance, fossil fuel giants profited $4 trillion in 2022—why are they not leading in finance contributions? No debates are forthcoming on this.

2. China’s role: As the world’s largest emitter today, China must recalibrate its strategy. Its reliance on loans to fund developing countries, rather than grants, reflects self-interest rather than solidarity or rather a focus on strategic geopolitical gains rather than equitable distribution.

3. Global taxation: A global carbon tax on high-emission industries and international flights could generate hundreds of billions annually. With the recent COPs full of fossil fuel industry lobbyists, will this even allowed to be a point of debate, though?

4. European Union: Leads in contributions, often accounting for over 40% of global climate finance.

5. United States: While historically the largest emitter, it lags in per-capita contributions to climate finance, having failed to deliver its fair share repeatedly.

There are also the Multi-lateral Development Banks (MDB's) - But, eventually this patchwork approach is neither sustainable nor sufficient.

A path forward of systemic change

The current climate finance framework is woefully inadequate, hampered by inefficiencies, inequities, and broken promises. A systemic overhaul is not optional to address the climate crisis effectively but is imperative.

So here goes a roadmap for this transformative change.

1. Mandatory contributions: To enforce equity in funding

Global institutions, particularly under the UNFCCC framework, must enforce binding financial contributions tailored to countries’ historical emissions and economic capacity.

? Quantified targets: Assign binding financial commitments proportional to cumulative emissions since the industrial era. For example, the U.S. alone is responsible for 25% of historical emissions and should contribute accordingly.

? Penalties for non-compliance: Introduce penalties for nations failing to meet climate finance obligations, ensuring accountability.

? Differentiated responsibilities: Wealthy nations must bear the brunt of these contributions while emerging economies like India and Brazil could take on conditional commitments tied to their developmental needs.

2. Debt-free funding: The need to prioritize grants over loans

Loans dominate the climate finance landscape and account for over 70% of climate funding flows. This exacerbates the debt burdens of nations already grappling with economic instability.

? Grant-based financing: Shift the paradigm to prioritize grants over loans, particularly for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS).

? Philanthropic partnerships: Mobilize funding from private foundations to supplement grant-based financing, as demonstrated by initiatives like the Bezos Earth Fund.

3. Private sector buy-In: Leverage corporate responsibility

High-emitting corporations often escape accountability despite generating profits directly tied to environmental degradation.

? Carbon contribution mechanisms: Mandate corporate contributions based on their carbon footprints. For example, fossil fuel giants should fund adaptation and mitigation projects in proportion to their emissions.

? Green Investment Incentives: Introduce tax incentives for corporations investing in renewable energy, reforestation, and carbon capture technologies.

4. Streamlined governance: Enhance accountability and transparency

The fragmented governance of climate finance breeds inefficiency and misuse. A unified, transparent system is critical.

? Unified reporting standards: Establish global standards for defining and reporting climate finance, with independent audits to verify contributions and allocations.

? Transparency portals: Launch publicly accessible platforms where stakeholders can track pledges, disbursements, and project outcomes in real-time.

? Dedicated climate finance body: Empower multilateral institutions like the Green Climate Fund (GCF) to independently manage and allocate funds, free from donor influence.

5. Innovative funding mechanisms: Think beyond the status quo

To bridge the growing gap between needs and available funds, we must embrace creative solutions:

? Global Carbon Tax: A tax on high-emission activities, such as international aviation and shipping, could generate billions annually.

? Climate Bonds: Expand the use of green bonds to attract private investment in climate projects.

To conclude, climate finance is not a favour—it's a fundamental obligation. Developed nations must honour their historical responsibility while emerging economies and private corporations play supporting roles. The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities should drive action—not excuses.

The question is no longer if we can afford climate finance—it’s whether the world’s wealthiest will finally stop passing the buck. Inaction is not just morally incomprehensible; it’s also economically short-sighted.

So, will the global community rise to the challenge? Or will history remember this era as one of missed opportunities? And this is why I am looking forward to the subsequent COPs eagerly – which group of developed countries will step up to their responsibility and lead the mandate?

Bibliography

1.Carbon Brief. (2024). COP29: Six key reasons why international climate finance is a wild west. Retrieved from https://www.carbonbrief.org/cop29-six-key-reasons-why-international-climate-finance-is-a-wild-west/

2. World Resources Institute. (2024). International climate finance: Which countries should pay? Retrieved from https://www.wri.org/insights/international-climate-finance-which-countries-should-pay

3. Nature Communications. (2024). Climate finance: Debating who should foot the bill. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/s44168-024-00190-6

4. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). (2024). Climate finance in the negotiations. Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/topics/climate-finance/the-big-picture/climate-finance-in-the-negotiations

5. DW News. (2024). Who pays for climate change, and where does the money go? Retrieved from https://www.dw.com/en/who-pays-for-climate-change-and-where-does-the-money-go/a-67089630

6. WWF. (2024). Climate change: Who should foot the bill? Retrieved from https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?10213441/Climate-change-Who-should-foot-the-bill

7. The Indian Express. (2024). Explained: Climate finance and the role of developed countries. Retrieved from https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-climate/climate-finance-developed-countries-9234185/

8. World Economic Forum. (2024). Private climate finance: 4 things you need to know. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/04/private-climate-finance-4-things-you-need-to-know/

9. Nature News. (2024). The COP29 climate finance agenda: Barriers and opportunities. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03735-1

10. The Guardian. (2024). COP29 Summit: Financial agenda highlights wealthy polluters’ obligations. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/10/cop29-summit-financial-agenda-wealthy-polluters

11. Transparency International. (2024). Corruption and climate finance: Risks facing energy transition initiatives at COP29. Retrieved from https://www.transparency.org/en/blog/corruption-and-climate-finance-risks-facing-energy-transition-initiatives-cop29

12. Reuters. (2024). Why are countries fighting over climate finance at COP29? Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/why-are-countries-fighting-over-climate-finance-cop29-2024-11-13/