2024-11-24 00:18:00
The climate negotiations in Baku ended with an absolute minimum compromise and a half-hearted climate financing target. By 2035, 300 billion US dollars should be made available annually for global climate protection, climate adaptation and climate-related damage and losses. This is far below the actual needs of developing countries. There is a faint glimmer of hope: by the next climate conference in Brazil, a roadmap should be developed on how this financing gap can be closed. Greenpeace is primarily calling for those responsible for the climate crisis – the fossil fuel industry – to be taxed accordingly and to use the income for climate financing. Greenpeace also criticizes the fact that, after Baku, there is still no obligation to anchor the already decided phase-out of fossil fuels in the climate protection plans due for all countries in 2025.
Jasmin Duregger, climate and energy expert at Greenpeace in Austria and on site in Baku: “The world has missed the chance to finally open the money taps necessary to confront the climate crisis worldwide. This is a bitter disappointment for everyone whose livelihoods and homes are already being destroyed by the climate crisis. A glimmer of hope is the agreement to develop a roadmap for increasing financial resources by the next climate summit in Brazil. Ways must be found there to make the real perpetrators of the climate crisis – the fossil fuel industry – pay.”
There is also hardly any improvement in the move away from fossil fuels: “The climate summit did not achieve the hoped-for progress in climate protection. It is now up to the individual states to show leadership and promote the phase-out of coal, oil and gas in their countries. Climate protection must play a central role in the Austrian government negotiations; this is the only way Austria can remain an ally in the fight against the climate crisis.”
All hope now lies in the climate negotiations in Belem, Brazil next year. Everything there will revolve around increasing the climate protection goals for the 10th anniversary of the Paris climate goals. Duregger on this: “We can now only look forward to the next climate negotiations in Brazil with hope. The expectations are clear: In Brazil it is finally time for a presidency that shows more diplomatic skills and can thus build bridges between the countries. After the disappointing result in Baku, a lot has to be made up for next year.”
OTS ORIGINAL TEXT PRESS RELEASE UNDER THE EXCLUSIVE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SENDER FOR CONTENT – WWW.OTS.AT | GRP
1732426354
#Greenpeace #criticizes #climate #summit #disappointing #minimal #compromise
What are the main challenges faced by developing countries in climate financing as discussed by Jasmin Duregger during the interview?
**Interview with Jasmin Duregger, Climate and Energy Expert at Greenpeace**
**Interviewer:** Thank you for joining us, Jasmin. The recent climate negotiations in Baku have ended, but it appears the outcomes have left many wanting more. Can you share your thoughts on the overall result of the talks?
**Jasmin Duregger:** Thank you for having me. Indeed, the negotiations concluded with what I would call an absolute minimum compromise. The target set for climate financing—$300 billion annually by 2035—falls significantly short of the actual needs of developing countries, which are facing severe impacts from climate change. This is a bittersweet outcome, as it illustrates the ongoing disconnect between the pledges made at these talks and the urgent requirements on the ground.
**Interviewer:** You mentioned a “faint glimmer of hope” regarding future negotiations. Could you elaborate on that?
**Jasmin Duregger:** Yes, there is a roadmap expected to be developed by the next conference in Brazil. This will ideally address how we can close the significant financing gap. It’s essential that we build on this momentum and use it as an opportunity to enhance commitments and accountability from all nations, particularly those with historical responsibility for the climate crisis.
**Interviewer:** One key point of criticism from Greenpeace is the lack of binding commitments on fossil fuel phase-outs. Why do you think this is a critical issue?
**Jasmin Duregger:** It’s absolutely critical. Despite the acknowledgment of the need to phase out fossil fuels, there are no obligations for countries to incorporate this into their climate protection plans due by 2025. This creates a dangerous scenario where nations can continue to rely on fossil fuels without accountability, undermining the very goals we’re trying to achieve in combating climate change. We cannot effectively tackle climate issues unless we confront the root causes, which are predominantly fossil fuel emissions.
**Interviewer:** Greenpeace has also advocated for taxing the fossil fuel industry to fund climate financing. How do you envision this working?
**Jasmin Duregger:** This tax would target the very sectors that have profited from the climate crisis. By levying taxes on these companies, we could generate significant revenue that could be redirected towards climate protection, adaptation projects, and addressing climate-related damages in vulnerable countries. It’s about holding polluters accountable and ensuring that the financial burden of the climate crisis doesn’t fall disproportionately on those who are least responsible.
**Interviewer:** Thank you for sharing these insights, Jasmin. It’s clear there’s much work ahead.
**Jasmin Duregger:** Thank you for having me. It’s crucial for everyone to stay engaged in these discussions, as the stakes are incredibly high for our planet and future generations.
