Finance
Cop30: deep division on core issues, but progress on climate and adaptation finance
Cop30 nearly went up in smoke – quite literally when a fire broke out in the conference centre. While the official statements talk about the historic success of the negotiations, a closer look at the results reveals a more fractured reality. Mired in geopolitical tensions, there were no clear winners. While some progress was made, the lack of a US delegation left a gaping hole in leadership; one that China was well positioned to take up, but failed to step up on its commitments.
With no one to put pressure on other economies like China and petrostates to take more responsibility, there was a lack of consensus and deep division on key issues. An effort to adopt a plan to phase out fossil fuels was dropped, and there was very little pressure on the shortfall in national climate commitments. The lack of a transition away from fossil fuels nearly derailed negotiations and in the end no mention of fossil fuels was made.
“Despite the disagreements over an explicit plan for the transition away from fossil fuels, the Paris Agreement implicitly mandates this as it is impossible [to] meet its goals without the replacement of dirty energy with clean alternatives across the world,” said Nicholas Stern, chair of the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics.
Instead, leadership on transitioning away from fossil fuels is happening outside Cop, with the governments of Colombia and the Netherlands announcing their own international conference on the just transition away from fossil fuels, hoping to fill the gap that Cop30 has failed to address.
Still, it wasn’t all doom and gloom. Some measures were passed, including efforts on adaptation, just transition and climate finance. It also succeeded in putting more people impacted by climate change at the heart of the discussions, with a record number of Indigenous Peoples attending.
Adaptation finance to triple by 2035
On adaptation, Cop30 delivered what Stern called “genuine progress” with a pledge to triple the finance goal from US$40bn to $120bn annually by 2035. Yet this five-year delay from the 2030 timeline proposed by climate vulnerable nations leaves frontline communities without the necessary support to “match the escalating needs they are facing now”, said Mohamed Adow of Powershift Africa.
In Belém, parties formalised the Baku Adaptation Roadmap, a 2026-2028 work programme for operationalising adaptation goals, including support for vulnerable nations to develop national adaptation plans. A comprehensive set of 59 voluntary, non-prescriptive indicators to track progress under the Global Goal on Adaptation was also finalised at the summit, representing a significant step forward for transparency and accountability.
But there’s a flaw: no dedicated funding or clear mechanism was introduced to require rich countries to actually deliver adaptation finance. While the summit’s presidency promised adaptation would no longer be secondary to mitigation, the final text merely “urges” rich nations “to increase the trajectory of their collective provision of climate finance for adaptation”.
Consequently, there are fears those most exposed to, and least responsible for, climate impacts will be left to pick up the bill. Mamadou Ndong Toure of Practical Action in Senegal argued that: “Adaptation cannot be built on shrinking commitments; people on the frontline need predictable, accountable support.” Without binding finance, there is a danger adaptation goals remain aspirational.
Groundbreaking just transition mechanism established, but finance gap threatens delivery
Another serious institutional achievement of this year’s Cop was the establishment of the Belém Action Mechanism on Just Transition, following years of civil society pressure. The mechanism commits to providing technical assistance, capacity-building and knowledge sharing to ensure the transition away from fossil fuels supports workers and communities.
The new mechanism provides concrete steps towards implementation and ensures just transition will remain on the agenda at future summits.
Karabo Mokgonyana of Power Shift Africa celebrated the outcome, noting it had “finally grounded just transition in justice” by recognising equity, inclusivity, and the developmental needs of workers and communities, not just sectors or technologies as previous iterations did.
However, its effectiveness depends entirely on implementation. As Friederike Strub of Recourse Finance cautioned: “To make just transition happen we need public finance backing, systemic economic reform, and a clear roadmap to end fossil fuels.”
A critical concern remains that multilateral development banks (MDBs), which are expected to finance just transition projects, continue funding fossil fuels. With 73% of MDB climate finance delivered as loans rather than grants – often tied to austerity conditions – and MDBs actively promoting gas as a “transition fuel,” countries risk being locked into extractive models that directly contradict just transition principles.
Loss and damage fund launches
The final text also included a review of the Warsaw mechanism for loss and damage, the UN’s core policy framework for supporting countries on the frontlines of climate impacts. Financing for loss and damage has long been a fraught topic at previous Cops, with progress painfully slow: about $789m has been pledged to the fund but only around $432m is actually in the fund’s account.
At Cop30, the fund launched its first call for funding requests with US$250m in grants allocated for 2025–2026. Applications open on 15 December, with countries given six months to submit proposals.
Harjeet Singh, global engagement director at the Fossil Fuel Non‑Proliferation Treaty Initiative, argued that while the institutional architecture is now “fit for purpose”, money remains the missing piece: “A system cannot rebuild a home without money. Bureaucratic pledges cannot feed a family whose crops have failed.”
Two-year work programme on climate finance
Climate finance wasn’t one of the main agenda items but it ended up playing a key role during Cop. One of the efforts included the launch of a two-year work programme on climate finance with a focus on article 9 of the Paris Agreement which states that countries “shall provide” climate finance. This usually means public financing, but the $300bn a year goal from last year’s Cop includes public and private finance.
This has caused some debate, as developing countries argue it allows developed countries to meet the goal without increasing their contributions.
Instead, a compromise was reached to include a two-year roadmap on how to implement article 9, including the provision on country obligations which will be co-chaired by representatives from developing and developed countries.
This is part of a larger financing goal to $1.3tn, known as the Baku to Belém roadmap. While the roadmap delayed implementation by five years from 2030 to 2035, it includes practical steps on how to drive investment, said Ani Dasgupta, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute.
“Announcements throughout the week, from risk guarantees to country platforms, showed that these ideas are already moving from concept to implementation,” Dasgupta said.
$6.6bn in funding for Brazil’s Tropical Forest Forever Facility
Despite momentum around Brazil’s Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF), the final outcome did not include a commitment to tackling deforestation. Still, Cop30 president André Aranha Corrêa do Lago said the Brazilian presidency would work on creating roadmaps on deforestation outside of Cop.
The final text did emphasise the importance of halting deforestation by 2030 to meet the Paris Agreement, but earlier drafts to reverse deforestation were left out
Brazil’s TFFF was hailed as a milestone by the Cop30 presidency, after it secured $6.6bn in funding from Germany, Norway, Brazil, Portugal, France and the Netherlands. The aim is to pay countries to keep their tropical forests instead of allowing them to be destroyed. It hopes to secure $25bn in funding to help support 74 tropical forest countries including Brazil and those in the Congo basin.
However, some have questioned how effective the fund will be without binding government rules to stop harmful logging practices, as well as concerns about the financial risk and very little involvement with Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
Critical minerals removed from final text
The removal of all references to critical minerals governance from the final text ranks among the summit’s most consequential failures. Despite vocal support from the African Group of Negotiators and the Alliance of Small Island States, draft language on “social and environmental risks” in mining and “responsible” mineral processing was deleted in final negotiations.
China’s delegation led the opposition, citing a lack of consensus on definitions and potential damage to Chinese business interests, according to observers speaking to Dialogue Earth. Yet the stakes are undeniable. “Minerals are the backbone of the shift away from fossil fuels,” warned Antonio Hill of the Natural Resource Governance Institute. “Leaving their governance out of just-transition planning will undermine efforts to accelerate renewable energies by 2030.”
Beyond Cop’s negotiating rooms, African leaders are charting their own course. At a high-level dialogue held ahead of the G20 summit, senior policymakers outlined a pan-African strategic plan for turning mineral wealth into negotiating power.
Panellists stressed the importance of harmonised, robust ESG standards as well as a home-grown regional green mineral development fund. They also insisted technology transfers – another commitment cut from Cop30’s final text – must be “non-negotiable” for partners relying on the continent’s abundant mineral wealth to drive their own green industrialisation going forward.
Marit Kitaw, former director of the African Union’s Minerals Development Centre who appeared on the panel, framed the challenge in comments on LinkedIn: “Africa holds the mineral ingredients for the global energy transition. The question is: is Africa ready to lead, to bargain, to industrialise, and become a rule-maker?”
This page was last updated November 26, 2025
Finance
German finance minister wants to scrap spousal tax splitting
Last weekend, several thousand people took to the streets in Munich to demonstrate against abortion and assisted suicide. One speaker made an extremely dramatic plea against what he called the “culture of death” that has allegedly taken hold in Germany. One sign of this, the speaker argued, was that the government is planning to abolish a regulation known as “spousal tax splitting.”
Is tax law really relevant to deep philosophical debates on the sanctity of life? It is even a matter of life and death at all? Surely we needn’t go that far? In any case, the intense political uproar surrounding the new debate on whether to abolish spousal tax splitting is notable, even by today’s standards of populist outrage.
An advantage for couples with widely divergent incomes
The row was sparked by Germany’s vice chancellor and finance minister, Lars Klingbeil, of the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), who said he wanted to abolish and replace the joint taxation of spouses’ income, a system that has been in place since 1958.
How exactly does spousal tax splitting work? In Germany, married couples (and since 2013, couples in civil partnerships), can choose to have their income assessed jointly by the tax authorities.
It means that the taxable income for both spouses together is halved – as if both partners had each earned an equal half of the income. Their tax liability is then determined by simply doubling the income tax due on one half.
As people who earn more pay higher taxes in Germany, this system benefits couples where one partner (and often this is still the man) earns significantly more than the other (in practice often the woman).
Costs of up to €25 billion per year
If for example one partner earns €60,000 ($70,512) a year and the other partner earns nothing, the couple will be taxed as if they earned €30,000 each. In this example, the couple would save nearly €5,800 in taxes per year compared to the amount they would owe if both partners filed their taxes separately. According to the Finance Ministry, spousal tax splitting costs the government a total of up to €25 billion annually.
Some critics have long viewed splitting as a tool to keep women out of the labor market, because the more a woman earns, the larger her tax burden becomes. Klingbeil seems to agree, arguing on ARD television in late March that the system was “out of step with the times.” The spousal splitting system reflects “a view of women and families that is completely at odds with my own,” he said.
Chancellor Merz said to be in favor of splitting
On Monday of this week, Klingbeil got some surprising support on this from Johannes Winkel, head of the youth wing of the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU).
“Given the demographic reality, the government should create incentives to ensure that both partners in a relationship are employed,” Winkel told the Funke Media Group. “In the future, tax relief should primarily be granted to married couples when they are facing hardships related to raising children.”
But the chancellor is a vocal skeptic of the proposal. “I am not convinced by the claim that joint filing for married couples discourages women from working,” Friedrich Merz said at a conference organized by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper. “Marriage is a relationship based on shared income and mutual support. And in a marriage, income must be treated as a joint income for tax purposes, not separately.”
Klingbeil’s alternative plan
At around 74%, the labor force participation rate for women in Germany is one of the highest in Europe, but half of them work part-time.
Klingbeil’s idea is to replace the existing system with a more flexible approach: Both partners would be able to distribute tax-free income among themselves in such a way that it minimizes their tax liability. This would allow the couple to continue enjoying a tax advantage, albeit not to the same extent as before. And whether one partner earns more than the other would become less important.
However, it remains to be seen whether Klingbeil will be able to push through his proposal. Aside from Germany, similar regulations offering tax benefits to couples exist in Poland, Luxembourg, Portugal and France.
This article was originally written in German.
Finance
Departing inspector general targets Council Office of Financial Analysis
The $537,000-a-year office created in 2014 to advise the City Council on financial issues and avoid a repeat of the parking meter fiasco has failed to deliver on that mission, the city’s chief watchdog said Tuesday.
Days before concluding her four-year term, Inspector General Deborah Witzburg said a shortage of both adequate staff and financial information closely held by the mayor’s office prevents the Council’s Office of Financial Analysis from helping the Council be the the “co-equal branch of government” it aspires to be.
In a budget rebellion not seen since “Council Wars” in the 1980s, a majority of alderpersons led by conservative and moderate Democrats rejected Mayor Brandon Johnson’s corporate head tax and approved an alternative budget, including several revenue-generating items the mayor’s office adamantly opposed.
But Witzburg said the renegades would have been in an even better position to challenge Johnson if only their financial analysis office had been “equipped and positioned to do what it’s supposed to do” — provide the Council with “objective, independent financial analysis.”
“We are entering new territory where the City Council is asserting new, independent authority over the budget process. It can’t do that in a meaningful way without its own access to financial analysis,” Witzburg told the Chicago Sun-Times.
Chicago Inspector General Deborah Witzburg’s latest report focuses on the Chicago City Council’s Office of Financial Analysis.
Jim Vondruska/Jim Vondruska/For the Sun-Times
But the Council’s financial analysis office, she added, “has never been equipped or positioned to do what it needs to do. It needs better and more independent access to data, and it needs enough staff to do its job. It has a small number of employees and comparatively limited access to data.”
The inspector general’s farewell audit examined the period from 2015 through 2023. During that time, the financial analysis office budget authorized “either three or four” full-time employees. It now has a staff of five .
Witzburg is recommending a staffing analysis to identify how many people the financial office really needs — and also recommending that the office “get data directly” from other city departments, “ rather than having it go through the mayor’s office.”
The audit further recommends that the office develop “better procedures to meet their reporting requirements” in a timely manner. As it stands now, reports are delivered “sometimes late, sometimes not at all,” the inspector general said.
“We find that those reports have been both not timely and not complete in terms of what they are required to report on and that those reports therefore have provided limited assistance to the City Council in its responsibility to make decisions about the city’s budget,” she said.
The Council Office of Financial Analysis responded to the audit by saying it hopes to add at least three full-time staffers in the short term and has made “some progress” over the last three years in improving their access to data, but not enough.
The office was created in 2014 to provide Council members with expert advice on fiscal issues.
For nearly two years the reform was stuck in the mud over whether former 46th Ward Ald. Helen Shiller had the independence and policy expertise to lead the office.
Shiller ultimately withdrew her name, but the office was a bust nevertheless. In an attempt to breathe new life into it, sponsors pushed through a series of changes.
Instead of allowing the Budget chair alone to request a financial analysis on a proposal impacting the city budget, any alderperson was allowed to make that request.
The office was further required to produce activity reports quarterly, not just annually.
Now former-Budget Chair Pat Dowell (3rd) then chose Kenneth Williams Sr., a former analyst for the office, as director and gave him the “autonomy” the ordinance demanded.
Two years ago, a bizarre standoff developed in the office.
Budget Committee Chair Jason Ervin (28th) was empowered to dump Williams after Williams refused to leave to make way for a director of Ervin’s own choosing.
The standoff began when Williams said he was summoned to Ervin’s office and told the newly appointed Budget chair was “going in a different direction, and I’m putting you on administrative leave” with pay.
“He took all my credentials and access away. I would love to come to work. I wasn’t allowed to come to work,” Williams said then.
Williams collected a paycheck for doing nothing while serving out the final days remainder of a four-year term.
Ervin’s resolution stated the director “may be removed at any time with or without cause by a two-thirds” vote or 34 alderpersons. He chose Janice Oda-Gray, who remains chief administrator.
Finance
Reilly Barnes Returns to Little League® as Purchasing/Finance Assistant
Little League® International has announced that Reilly Barnes accepted a new role as Purchasing/Finance Assistant, effective April 6, 2026. Barnes transitions from a temporary Purchasing Assistant to this full-time position to assist in the year-round demands of purchasing for the organization, as well as the region and Little League Baseball and Softball World Series tournaments.
“We are thrilled to welcome back Reilly to our team as a full-time Purchasing/Finance Assistant. Reilly’s prior experience, time management, and attention to detail make him an invaluable asset to the purchasing team,” said Nancy Grove, Little League Materials Management Director. “We look forward to the positive contributions he will have on our organization.”
In this role, Barnes will be responsible for processing purchase requisitions, coordinating souvenir products, and tracking order fulfillment. He will also assist with evaluating suppliers, reviewing product quality, and negotiating contracts for effective operations.
After most recently working as a Logistician Analyst at Precision Air in Charleston, South Carolina, Barnes, a Williamsport native, returns after honing his skills in the fast-paced environment. Prior to his time at Precision Air, Barnes served as a Procurement Specialist at The Medical University of South Carolina, where his expertise and knowledge were instrumental in supporting both education and healthcare needs.
“I am thrilled to return to Little League in this full-time role,” said Barnes. “Coming back to my hometown and having the opportunity to work for an organization that has played such a special part of my upbringing means a lot. I can’t wait begin this new opportunity.”
Barnes graduated from the University of Pittsburgh in 2022 with a B.A. in Supply Chain Management, Finance, and Business Analytics.
-
Virginia49 seconds agoNick Jonas set to perform at Caesars Virginia in June
-
Washington7 minutes agoPulitzer-winning Washington Post editor Dan Eggen found dead at 60 after being laid-off earlier this year
-
Wisconsin13 minutes agoWisconsin’s Mr. Basketball Announces Highly Anticipated Commitment Decision
-
West Virginia19 minutes agoChemical emergency at Kanawha County plant – WV MetroNews
-
Wyoming25 minutes agoWyoming’s Title X Family Planning network remains a critical part of the state’s health care system
-
Crypto31 minutes agoCurrent price of Ethereum for April 22, 2026 | Fortune
-
Finance37 minutes agoGerman finance minister wants to scrap spousal tax splitting
-
Fitness43 minutes agoPut the fun back in your fitness routine with this 10-minute follow-along workout from The Curvy Girl Trainer Lacee Green