Bonn: The Pitstop on the Road to COP

The Bonn Climate Conference in June provides an insight into the key climate debates ahead of COP. Chloe Moriarty discusses this year’s conference, the central issue of climate finance, and what it means ahead of COP29 in November.

Each year, the Bonn Climate Conference provides an opportunity for world leaders to come together and resume their often heated debates over global environmental challenges, ahead of their meeting at the Conference of the Parties (COP). This two-week long event does not typically produce any significant policies, as leaders only discuss drafts of texts that form the foundations for negotiations at the later COP. The Bonn Climate Conference rather serves as a political testing ground where each nation ‘feels out’ the environmental aspirations, and often not-so-hidden motivations, of their counterparts.

The city of Bonn, Germany, hosts the annual climate conference, which acts as the predecessor to that year’s Conference of the Parties. Credits: Matthias Zepper via Wikimedia Commons.

Returning to the agenda this year were the usual stars of climate discussions- namely adaptation, mitigation, climate damages, and the transition to a fossil fuel-free world. Topping the list as the most controversial topic, however, was the issue of climate finance- how was all of this going to be paid for but- more importantly- who was going to pay for it.

The issue of money became the centrepiece for these negotiations this year. Offering a response to the rapidly escalating costs of climate change; the World Economic Forum suggests that climate change damages could cost up to £2.2 trillion by 2050. Yet conversations became rapidly marred by rising geopolitical tensions and, as is often the case in climate discourse, those seated at the table came poised to enact the most recent edition of the ‘blame game’, providing the ultimate distraction from the intended purpose of the talks.

Disentangling blame and emotions from discussions of environmental and economic policy can be an insurmountable task, especially given that some states consider this not just a matter of finance but one of existence. Described by the United Nations as being ‘on the frontline of multiple crises’, Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change such as rising sea level and extreme weather. From their viewpoint, those responsible for greenhouse gas emissions should pay financial reparations to the states that bear the biggest burden of climate change- essentially an extension of the existing ‘polluter pays’ principle. This extension has been termed as the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCGQ). This would allow SIDS to develop more effective adaptation strategies, as well as the crucial infrastructure needed to shield them from the worsening impacts of global warming.

Small Island Developing States such as the Maldives are amongst the nations most severely threatened by the impacts of climate change. Credits: Nevit Dilmen via Wikimedia Commons.

The debate arises where nations are unable to decide who is most to blame for the climate crisis- after all, the state most responsible is likely the one that will have to pay the most. Different states will argue differing ways of measuring this. If going off of present emissions, China, the USA, and India would be most culpable. If going off of cumulative emissions- the total greenhouse gases emitted since the Industrial Revolution began- the UK would have to assume more responsibility. Until this continuous argument is resolved, it stands to perpetually hinder these discussions and subsequently delay the financial support that these states so desperately require.

Alongside these accountability disputes come logistical ones, on which almost no state can agree. These not only include deciding who should pay, but also who should receive the funds, the total amount that should be given, what it should be used for, the transparency of these transactions, and the ability of the receiving states to effectively distribute this money. Another key debate was over the form in which money should be given- the ‘receivers’ argue that loans will only serve to burden already-struggling states with overwhelming debt; the ‘givers’ argue that loans are the most just system. There is no clear solution to these divisions in opinion, and post-Bonn it seems uncertain that COP29 will produce the ambitious climate finance agreements that it aims to deliver.

The world’s leaders and industry experts will meet in COP29 later this year, held in Azerbaijan, to discuss global action on climate change. Credits: Dean Calma/ IAEA via Wikimedia Commons.

Looking forward to the November summit, there is much to contemplate- not just on finance, but also on carbon markets, adaptation versus mitigation, and several other important issues that were tabled in Bonn. Yet climate change could be considered a ‘runaway car’; the question remains of how long fruitless debates can persist before the vehicle can no longer be brought under control. If we are truly to take global action on climate change, debates of morality and accountability must be ironed out. The age-old ‘blame game’ must be retired, and diverse voices must not simply be heard but actively listened to. The journey ahead may be bumpy, tiring, and endless, but one thing remains- the car will keep on moving. The question is: do we want to drive it, or let it drive us?

About the Author: Chloe Moriarty is a third-year BSc Geography with Proficiency in Law student at the University of Exeter, with a keen interest in historic extinctions, human-wildlife conflicts, and environmental law. She runs an environmental campaign on campus, and volunteers weekly for an environmental education charity. You can find out more and connect with Chloe via her LinkedIn.