Connect with us

Finance

Climate finance: what you need to know ahead of COP29

Published

on

Climate finance: what you need to know ahead of COP29

Climate finance will be at the top of the agenda at the upcoming COP29 in November (Marvin RECINOS)

Developing countries will need trillions of dollars in the years ahead to deal with climate change — but exactly how much is needed, and who is going to pay for it?

These difficult questions will be wrestled at this year’s United Nations climate conference, known as COP29, being hosted in Azerbaijan in November.

– What is climate finance? –

It is the buzzword in this year’s negotiations, but there isn’t one agreed definition of “climate finance”.

Advertisement

In general terms, it’s money spent in a manner “consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development”, as per phrasing used in the Paris agreement.

That includes government or private money channelled into low-carbon investments in clean energy like wind and solar, technology like electric vehicles, or adaptation measures like dikes to hold back rising seas.

But could a subsidy for a new water-efficient hotel, for example, be included in climate finance?

The COPs — the annual UN-sponsored climate summits — have never defined it.

– How much is needed? –

Advertisement

The Climate Policy Initiative, a nonprofit research group, estimates that $10 trillion per year in climate finance will be needed between 2030 and 2050.

This compares to around $1.3 trillion spent in 2021-2022.

But in the parlance of UN negotiations, climate finance has come to refer to something more specific — the difficulties that developing nations face getting the money they need to adapt to global warming.

The line between climate finance and conventional development aid is sometimes blurred.

But experts commissioned by the UN estimate that developing countries, excluding China, will need an estimated $2.4 trillion per year by 2030.

Advertisement

– Who will pay? –

Under a UN accord adopted in 1992, a handful of countries deemed wealthy, industrialised, and the most responsible for global warming were obligated to provide compensation to the rest of the world.

In 2009, these countries — the United States, the European Union, Japan, the United Kingdom, Canada, Switzerland, Turkey, Norway, Iceland, New Zealand and Australia — committed to paying $100 billion per year by 2020.

They only achieved this for the first time in 2022. The delay eroded trust and fuelled accusations that rich countries were shirking their responsibility.

At COP29, nearly 200 nations are expected to agree on a new finance goal beyond 2025 — but deep divisions remain over how much should be paid, and who should pay it.

Advertisement

India has called for $1 trillion annually, a ten-fold increase in the existing pledge, but countries on the hook to pay it want other major economies to chip in.

They argue times have changed since 1992. Economies have grown, new powers have emerged, and today the big industrialised nations of the early 1990s represent just 30 percent of historic greenhouse gas emissions.

In particular, there is a push for China — the world’s largest polluter today — and the Gulf countries to pay, a proposal they do not accept.

– Where will they find the money? –

Advertisement

Today, most climate finance aid goes through development banks or funds co-managed with the countries concerned, such as the Green Climate Fund and the Global Environment Facility.

Campaigners are very critical of the $100 billion pledge because two-thirds of the money was distributed as loans, often at preferential rates, but seen as compounding debt woes for poorer nations.

Even revised upwards, it is likely any future commitment will fall well short of what is needed.

But it is viewed as highly symbolic nonetheless, and crucial to unlocking other sources of money, namely private capital.

Financial diplomacy also plays out at the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the G20, where hosts Brazil want to craft a global tax on billionaires.

Advertisement

The idea of new global taxes, for example on aviation or maritime transport, is also supported by France, Kenya and Barbados, with the backing of UN chief Antonio Guterres.

Redirecting fossil fuel subsidies towards clean energy or wiping the debt of poor countries in exchange for climate investments are also among the options.

Another proposal, from COP29 host Azerbaijan, has floated asking fossil fuel producers to contribute to a new fund that would channel money to developing countries.

As for the “loss and damage” fund created at COP28 to support vulnerable nations cope with extreme weather events, it is still far from up and running, with just $661 million pledged so far.

bl-eab/np/yad/sw

Advertisement

Finance

Donating Stock Instead of Cash Is the 2-for-1 Deal You’ll Love at Tax Time

Published

on

Donating Stock Instead of Cash Is the 2-for-1 Deal You’ll Love at Tax Time

For many families, the holiday season comes with familiar rituals: untangling last year’s Christmas lights, decorating the tree and rediscovering ornaments we swore we’d organize “better next year.”

Charitable giving should feel just as joyful and natural — but for many households, it’s also a moment when good intentions collide with inefficient habits.

Continue Reading

Finance

Aerodrome Finance Hit by ‘Front-End’ Attack, Users Urged to Avoid Main Domain

Published

on

Aerodrome Finance Hit by ‘Front-End’ Attack, Users Urged to Avoid Main Domain

Aerodrome Finance, a leading decentralized exchange on Coinbase’s Base network with $400 million in total value locked, was targeted in a front-end attack late Friday, prompting urgent warnings for users to avoid its primary domains.

The incident appears to be a DNS hijacking of Aerodrome’s centralized domains, which allowed attackers to reroute users to lookalike phishing sites designed to trick them into signing malicious wallet transactions to separate them from their funds. Users are advised to instead rely on Aerodrome’s decentralized domains. Aerodrome has asked My.box, the domain provider, to contact them over a potential exploit of their systems.

These attacks do not compromise the underlying smart contracts, which manage user funds and protocol logic on-chain. At the time of writing, it’s unconfirmed whether the attack has led to any losses or how many users have been affected. Liquidity pools and protocol treasuries remain intact, according to Aerodrome.

Aerodrome’s team has been posting real-time updates on X, urging users not to access the compromised domains, aerodrome.finance and aerodrome.box, and instead use decentralized ENS mirrors like aero.drome.eth.limo. To reduce risk, the team recommends revoking recent token approvals using tools like Revoke.cash and avoiding signing any transactions from unverified domains.

New attack

Aerodrome has experienced similar front-end attacks before, including two in late 2023 that resulted in approximately $300,000 in user losses.

Advertisement

This latest attack comes just days after Aerodrome announced a merger with Velodrome, consolidating liquidity across Base and Optimism under the new “Aero” ecosystem. Despite the disruption, the AERO token price remained stable at around $0.67, up 2% over the last 24 hours.

The investigation is ongoing.

Continue Reading

Finance

Incredible year-long spending experiment exposes mistakes you’re probably making

Published

on

Incredible year-long spending experiment exposes mistakes you’re probably making
The forthcoming book follows her journey of one year without buying anything new and how it changed her relationship with money and her self-worth. (Source: Emma Edwards/Instagram)

Financial behaviour specialist Emma Edwards, founder of The Broke Generation, is sharing her radical personal finance experiment: a whole year without buying a single item of clothing.

No new outfits, no second-hand finds, not even rentals. What began as a no-buy challenge soon became a powerful lesson in self-worth, resilience, and the surprising freedom of living with less.

In the exclusive extract below, Emma shares the six buying patterns we get trapped into thinking we actually need.

RELATED

The impact of our consumption habits creates an environment where we’re cornered from every angle. We have a collection of clothes that don’t work together, don’t make us feel good and don’t allow us to express ourselves the way we want to, which leaves us looking externally for what we’re not getting. The problem is, when we look externally, we buy more and more of the same.

Advertisement

Unravelling that idea of what can happen when we’re in a ‘yes’ state, a state of openness to consumption even though our intentions might suggest otherwise, got me curious about some of the unhelpful buying cycles I’d been stuck in. I really leaned into understanding how I ended up with the wardrobe I currently had, and what I could learn from the mistakes I made over and over again.

I realised that if I could establish the mistakes I was making and the ways I was buying the wrong things, I’d stop feeling compelled to buy more and more over time. Here are some of the patterns I uncovered in my wardrobe, and that I’ve seen in others’ too.

Once I liked something in one colour (often black), I’d giddily run out and buy it in another colour, thinking I was making some kind of ultra-smart decision and capitalising on what I loved. I’m going to give you a piece of advice now that I hope you’ll remember for many years. If you ever utter the words ‘I’m going to go and get this in another colour’ – run. It’s a trap. You probably won’t like the other colour, and it’ll just sit in your wardrobe and collect dust.

There are certain things in my wardrobe that I struggled to wear confidently outside of one specific outfit silo. Usually, this is a sure-fire sign that I’d bought it in a very specific context, like copying or replicating an outfit I’d seen someone else wear.

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending