The United Nations (UN) Climate Change Conference (COP27), held in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, ended yesterday morning.

At the end of the summit, COP27 President and Egyptian Foreign Minister Samih Shukri, announced at the press conference that the coordination process has begun for the transfer of the presidency of next year’s COP28 to the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Shukri also announced that an agreement was reached at the conference to create a fund dedicated to the losses and damages caused by climate change in poor countries.

While poor and developing countries have been demanding this fund and a payment schedule for nearly 30 years, rich countries such as the United States and European Union (EU) members, which alone have the most responsibility for global and historical greenhouse gas emissions, have stood up to the agenda of creating funds and played for time.

The climate crisis is felt the most by the countries least to blame, so compensation is central to climate justice demands.

The fact that the countries and societies, which contributed the least to the greenhouse gases that warm the planet, suffered the most and were least equipped to cope with death and destruction was once again raised at this summit. One of the most important success criteria of the summit was the decisions expected to be taken in this regard.

The West is on at China

While the United States and EU countries are blocking the idea because they fear they may face huge payments and be held legally liable for historic greenhouse gas emissions, they also do not want the fund to go to states on the United Nations list of developing countries, such as China.

The EU then proposed to “set up a special fund for covering loss and damage in the most vulnerable countries, funded from a broad donor base.” Under this proposal, the loss and damage fund will be contributed not only by the wealthiest nations that have contributed the most to historic emissions, such as the United States and European countries, but also by emerging economies, such as China, whose emissions have risen in modern times.

However, in previous proposals, China was on the side of benefiting from the fund, not contributing to the fund. Beijing advocates the principle of “common but differentiated responsibility” in this regard. China has no liability for loss and damage, Beijing says, while arguing that they are already helping and are willing to help developing countries to increase their capacity to adapt through South-South Cooperation. Beijing denies the pressure of Western countries in this regard.

Therefore, this issue stands out as one of the important debates between China and the U.S. at climate summits.

Scope of the agreement remains unclear

Despite these debates, about 200 delegates in COP 27 reached agreement on the establishment of a loss and damage fund. However, there are serious questions about the scope of the agreement and whether it will be implemented.

Under the agreement, a transitional committee involving representatives of 24 different countries, will work over the next year to determine the form of the fund, which countries will contribute and where the money should go. The committee is expected to hold its first meeting before March 2023. The operational details of the fund will be determined at next year’s COP28 in Dubai. Apart from this general framework, many details remain unclear.

Officials have warned that the agreement on loss and damage is part of a broader agreement that is still under negotiation.

Rich countries, meanwhile, are demanding stronger commitments from developing countries to reduce emissions over the next decade to meet the climate targets of the Paris agreement, which calls on governments to limit global warming to well below 2°C and preferably 1.5°C.

According to the Global Times, formal talks between Beijing and Washington, and even face-to-face discussion, will take place after COP27 is concluded.

It may not be put into practice

Although poor countries are pleased that a decision on the fund has finally been taken, many are concerned about whether the decisions taken will translate into meaningful action. As a matter of fact, these concerns have a point. In 2009, developed countries committed to giving developing countries $100 billion annually by 2020 to help them reduce emissions and adapt to climate change. However, this commitment was not fulfilled and was constantly postponed.

Experts also point out that the details of how to implement the mechanism in line with the decision taken and how to quantify the damage caused by the climate crisis are not clear, stressing that this will make the mechanism difficult to operate and leave room for rich countries to maneuver.

It is unrealistic to expect the United States, historically the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, to lead efforts to provide climate finance for the developing world, which has blocked proposals for loss and damage to date. Considering that the U.S. budget for the fund should be approved by Congress, it may not even be possible for Washington to put money into the fund, let alone lead the way.

‘The empty promises of the West’ 

Criticizing the Western world for their indifference to the agenda of loss and damage, Scottish Prime Minister Nicola Sturgeon stressed that this is a fundamental question of climate justice and that the “rich world” has a responsibility here.

Despite the deteriorating effects of the climate crisis, the West, and especially the EU, has forsaken its responsibility with “empty promises and sweet nothings,” Sturgeon said.

From ‘phased out’ to ‘phased down’

On the other hand, after the COP26, when the ‘phase-out of coal’ was first mentioned, demands for the commitment to encompass all fossil fuels this year were not accepted. The demand for “phasing out of all fossil fuels” was not included in the final text.

Furthermore, the reference to “low-emission and renewable energy” in the text was interpreted as an element that could lead to the development of more sources of natural gas (as it produces less emissions than coal).

Following the sanctions against Russia, the European Union’s retreat from its goals due to the ongoing energy crisis has also attracted criticism within this context. Last year at COP26, discourses and commitments about “phasing out” coal were replaced by “phasing down” this year.

Parade of fossil fuel lobbyists

One of the most prominent criticisms of COP27 was the intense participation of fossil fuel lobbyists. Powerful fossil fuel companies swarmed the summit. 636 people linked to the oil and gas industry reportedly attended the summit.

The sponsorship of COP27 by Coca-Cola, which produces about 120 billion waste plastic bottles every year and uses fossil fuels in the process, was discussed widely on social media.