Authors: Meena Miriam Yust and Arshad M. Khan
Global warming affects every aspect of human existence on the planet — from where we can live, to our water supply, food supply, etc. An analysis of the Earth’s temperature over the past half billion years demonstrates that catastrophic weather and mass extinctions follow planet warming. More troubling, though, is the fact that at no point in this historic period did temperatures warm as fast as they are warming at present.
Moreover the Arctic is warming four times faster than the rest of the Earth. In addition to threatening the lives of polar bears and Arctic seals, ice melting affects us all. The jet stream is disrupted and weather patterns around the globe become more and more severe. Floods, hurricanes, snowstorms, droughts, and wildfires are just some of the impacts. Displacing people from their homes, climate change has already created refugees. It also affects our ability to have a safe and stable water supply. Drought is already becoming more common and snowpacks, a source of fresh water for many, are melting earlier in the year.
The monetary cost of climate disasters is huge. Direct damages of natural disasters over the past 10 years were estimated to add up to about $1.3 trillion dollars and, in 2018, California wildfires cost $350 billion.
From the Environmental Defense Fund to the Potsdam Institute, estimates of the projected economic damage of climate change will be approximately $38 trillion per year by 2050 if no preventive action is taken.
COP29 is perhaps the only gathering addressing the needs of planet Earth, our home, given the advance of climate change. Its recent meeting had to be extended to reach a tense deal, a deal that has left many greatly angered: Chandni Raina (her first name meaning “moonlight”) representing India called the deal ‘paltry’ and ‘nothing more than an optical illusion. This, in our opinion, will not address the enormity of the challenge we all face.’
The deal secured a commitment from developed nations of $300 billion to help developing countries in fighting climate change. Critics say the sum falls woefully short of the $1.3 trillion these nations say they need by 2035. India and Nigeria openly called the agreed upon amount insufficient.
The money is supposed to fund two key areas: (a) Energy transition to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and (b) Adaptation to assist with sustainable agriculture and to build resilient infrastructure and defenses against extreme weather events (think hurricanes/typhoons, forest fires, disastrous floods and their like).
The deal also established rules for carbon markets and a mechanism for the trade in carbon credits earned through emission reductions. It thus ensures incentives for investment in emission reducing projects.
In sum, it allows for bilateral trading of carbon credits between countries. They allow holders to offset the year’s emissions. And it also creates a global crediting system for emission reduction projects. Critics say the quality of the credits earned is not clarified while advocates believe it could unlock billions of dollars for emission reduction projects.
Countries are now required to submit their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) for reducing emissions by February 2025. These goals will outline a country’s strategy to reduce emissions. Several countries have already received praise for their ambitious NDCs to phase out fossil fuels and scale up renewable energy.
The UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres called on other countries to follow in their footsteps saying, “The end of the fossil fuel age is an economic inevitability. New national plans must accelerate the shift, and help to ensure it comes with justice.” These updated NDCs will be a test of each nation’s resolve in the global commitment to net zero. For developing countries the $300 billion financing promise is crucial and must be kept.
And this brings to mind the newly-elected U.S. president, Donald Trump, who has often labeled climate change a hoax perpetrated to relieve wealthy countries of their hard-earned money. He speaks a language loved by his supporters failing to realize they are regularly relieved of their money through income taxes. They should be arguing for less loopholes for the rich in the tax laws — loopholes added to tax bills of copious volume in the very early hours.
