For representative purposes.
| Photo Credit: iStockphoto

The story so far: COP29, the ongoing climate conference in Azerbaijan’s capital Baku, has given a fillip to the idea of using carbon markets to curb carbon emissions by approving standards that can help in the setting up of an international carbon market as soon as the coming year.

Also read: A guide to COP29 climate jargon

What is a carbon market?

A carbon market is a market that allows the buying and selling of the right to emit carbon into the atmosphere. Suppose a government wants to limit the amount of carbon emitted into the atmosphere. It can issue certificates called carbon credits that allow the holder of the certificate to emit a certain amount of carbon into the atmosphere. One carbon credit is equivalent to 1,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide. By limiting the number of carbon credits that are issued, governments can control how much carbon is released into the environment. It should be noted that anyone who doesn’t hold carbon credits to their name would not be allowed to emit any carbon into the atmosphere. Carbon credits were first used in the 1990s in the U.S., which introduced the cap-and-trade model to control the emission of sulphur dioxide.

Individuals and firms that hold carbon credits but don’t actually need them for any reason can sell their credits to interested buyers. The price at which these carbon credits are traded is determined by market forces, which in this case are the supply of carbon credits and the demand for these certificates. A carbon market can also include the trading of carbon offsets. In this case, a business that pollutes the environment for example, can purchase carbon offsets sold by an environmental NGO that promises to plant trees that suck a certain amount of carbon emissions out of the atmosphere for each offset that it sells.

What is good about carbon markets?

Pollution of the environment and climate change caused by carbon emissions is a classic case of what economists call an externality. An externality is caused when the cost of an economic activity is not properly accounted for (or internalised) by the market price system due to the absence of well-defined property rights. For example, a business that uses raw materials such as iron will have to pay the supplier who owns the iron to be able to procure and use it, thus incurring a certain cost. But when the same firm emits carbon into the atmosphere, it doesn’t usually have to pay any money to anyone. In other words, firms are generally able to emit their waste into the atmosphere for free. This of course leads to unhindered pollution of the atmosphere as firms in this case have no financial incentive to curb their carbon emissions. Carbon markets in which the right to pollute is traded for a price can solve the problem by imposing a certain cost on firms for polluting the atmosphere, helping to curb emissions in the process.

Also read: Takeaways from COP29 

The intersection of standardised accounting frameworks and technological advancements has improved the ability of corporations to monitor and report their carbon emissions. While, this is difficult for the vast majority of small businesses in the developing world, particularly in accurately capturing supply chain emissions, ongoing developments, like real-time data tracking of the energy sector, continue to enhance the granularity and reliability of corporate carbon accounting. However, corporations have preferred a voluntary reporting system, like the Carbon Disclosure Project. They have been loathe to government interventions limiting carbon emissions, arguing that such budgeting may lead to output restrictions or rise in costs. They also point to varied production processes, some that might have diverse supply chains that might make it difficult to find the optimal carbon budget for their facilities. Large multinational corporations such as ExxonMobil and General Motors have advocated for carbon markets that allows free trading of carbon credits among firms at a price determined by market forces, that would allow these firms to purchase carbon credits from other firms, which don’t need them as much. This they say, helps allocate carbon credits more efficiently than government diktat.

What can go wrong?

Even when there is a functioning carbon market, a government that is not very keen on reducing emissions may increase the supply of carbon credits and drive down the price of the right to pollute, leading to no noticeable drop in emissions. Others may keep a strict cap on the supply of carbon credits but allow firms to cheat by allowing them to illegally emit carbon. The success of carbon offsets also depends on the degree of personal incentive that firm owners possess to care about carbon emissions, which may often be very little. Critics claim that firms that purchase carbon offsets often do it for the sake of virtue signalling and may have little incentive to ensure that their investments in these instruments are actually helping offset carbon emissions. Meanwhile, other critics have raised more fundamental questions regarding how exactly a government would be able to arrive at the optimum supply of carbon credits. They argue that politicians, who do not incur any personal economic cost when they legislate emission reductions, may restrict the supply of carbon credits more than what is really necessary, leading to slower economic growth.

Matiul Haq Khalis, head of the National Environmental Protection Agency from Afghanistan, said Afghanistan must participate in future climate talks. File
| Photo Credit: AP

An Afghan environment official on Sunday (December 1, 2024) said the country must be allowed to participate in future global climate talks, after returning from COP29 in Baku where Taliban officials attended for the first time.

The Afghan delegation were invited as “guests” of the Azerbaijani hosts, not as a party directly involved in the negotiations.

It was the first time that an Afghan delegation had attended since the Taliban swept to power in August 2021, having failed to get an invite to the past two COPs (Conference of the Parties) held in Egypt and the United Arab Emirates.

“Afghanistan must participate in such conferences in the future,” said Matiul Haq Khalis, the director general of Afghanistan’s National Environmental Protection Agency, at a press conference on Sunday (December 1, 2024).

He described Afghanistan’s attendance last month at the talks as a “big achievement”.

“We participated in the conference this year so that we could raise the voice of the nation about the issues we are facing, what the needs of the people are, we must share these things with the world.”

He said the Afghan delegation had meetings with “19 different organisations and governments”, including with delegations from Russia, Qatar, Azerbaijan and Bangladesh.

Afghanistan is among the countries most vulnerable to global warming, despite minimal emissions, and the Taliban government have argued that their political isolation should not bar them from international climate talks.

The government has imposed an austere version of sharia Islamic law since taking power, severely restricting women’s participation in public life in what the United Nations has called a “gender apartheid”.

Among the poorest countries in the world after decades of war, Afghanistan is particularly exposed to the effects of climate change, which scientists say is spurring extreme weather including prolonged drought, frequent floods, and declining agricultural productivity.

The United Nations has also called for action to help Afghanistan build resilience and for the country’s participation in international talks.

Developed countries have committed to providing $100 billion per year in climate finance through 2025 to help developing nations prepare for worsening climate impacts and wean their economies off fossil fuels.

Activists participate in a demonstration for climate finance during the COP29 U.N. Climate Summit on November 23, 2024 in Baku, Azerbaijan.
| Photo Credit: AP

Despite running into overtime, very little headway had been achieved at the U.N. climate summit in Baku late on Saturday (November 23, 2024) in terms of bringing developed and developing countries any closer to agreeing to a new global financial target, called the New Collective Quantitative Goal (NCQG), for a moonshot at preventing a runaway rise in global temperatures. The conference was scheduled to end on Friday.

Negotiators who had been up since Friday morning were expecting another sleepless night on Saturday, one of them told The Hindu, after the latest attempt by hosts Azerbaijan failed to bridge the gap between blocs of developing and developed countries. This year, the COP Presidency is headed by Azerbaijan Minister Mukhtar Babayev. In fact, matters were so fractious that members of the Least Developed Countries (LDC) bloc and the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) said they would walk out of negotiations.

“We have temporarily walked out but remain interested in the talks until we get a fair deal,” said Evan Njewa of Malawi, the LDC chair, in a post on X.

‘Nickels and dimes’

The newest version of a draft text that is being deliberated upon raised the NCQG goal to $300 billion a year, to be given to developing countries by 2035. This was a hike from the $250 billion promised as on Friday night, after a massive outcry by most of the countries and civil society groups on the ground. These numbers are still substantially lower, they say, than the $1.3 trillion expected from developed countries.

“This is going the wrong way. Collecting nickels and dimes. They [developed countries] should have first raised $1 trillion in additional resources at the G-20, come prepared and then funded climate cleanly. Now, there is no chance. Better to call it off,” Dipak Dasgupta, a Distinguished Fellow at The Energy Resources Institute (Teri), said in a statement.

Implementation is key

Some analysts, however, suggest that there has been some progress over the last 24 hours, with a stated commitment to “triple finance flows” through specialised funds called the Adaptation Fund, the Special Climate Fund, and the LDC fund. “On the whole, a positive step forward for international climate finance – but the key lies in implementation of the stated intentions,” said Dhruba Purkayastha, director of the Council on Energy, Environment and Water.

He added that, while still not explicit, the plan seems to be that the developed world would use bilateral and multilateral institutions to channel $300 billion and use that to mobilise the required $1.3 trillion.

Other glimmers of optimism appear in paragraphs that aim to increase ‘grant financing’ (or loans that do not need to be paid back) and periodic reviews of whether those eligible for finance have the required access.

‘Headline management’

The negotiator referred to earlier said that counting money from multi-lateral financing institutions was a deal breaker as that did not reflect funds over and above what was anyway going to be provisioned for climate-based adaptation. “It is an attempt at headline management, rather than a desire to effect meaningful change,” the negotiator said.

It is not unusual for the climate talks to extend well beyond its scheduled end. For instance, the COP held at Madrid in 2019 went two days beyond its deadline before agreeing to a text though that was widely described as a “watered down” agreement.

Samoan Environment Minister Toeolesulusulu Cedric Schuster attends the COP29 United Nations Climate Change Conference, in Baku, Azerbaijan on November 23, 2024.
| Photo Credit: Reuters

Negotiators from small islands and least-developed nations on Saturday (November 23, 2024) walked out of overtime consultations on a climate deal with COP29 president Azerbaijan, saying their interests on finance were ignored.

“We’ve just walked out. We came here to this COP for a fair deal. We feel that we haven’t been heard,” said Cedric Schuster, the Samoan chairman of the Alliance of Small Island States, a coalition of nations threatened by rising seas.

Civil society members staged a silent march at the U.N. climate summit
| Photo Credit: REUTERS

Civil society members staged a silent march at the U.N. climate summit, condemning the developed nations’ proposal to increase annual climate finance to a meagre $250 billion by 2035. 

They called on the developing world to reject what they described as an “insulting” and “unjust” deal.  

With their arms crossed in defiance, protesters walked silently through the summit venue, where chanting is prohibited

“We urge you to stand up for the people of the Global South, and we insist: no deal in Baku is better than a bad deal, and this is a very, very bad deal because of the intransigence of developed countries,” said Climate Action Network (CAN), a global coalition of more than 1,900 civil society organisations, in a letter to G77 and China, the largest bloc of developing nations

The letter urged negotiators to abandon weak agreements, saying, “If nothing sufficiently strong is forthcoming at this COP, we urge you to walk away from the table to fight another day, and we will fight the same fight.”

Shailendra Yashwant, senior advisor at CAN South Asia, denounced the proposal, saying, “The NCQG (New Collective Quantified Goal on climate finance) number of $250 billion in the latest ministerial text is not a joke, it’s an insult to the people of the Global South salvaging their belongings and trying to rebuild their lives from floods, heatwaves, cyclones, landslides or forest fires and other climate change-induced disasters.”

Harjeet Singh, Global Engagement Director for the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, called the proposal “a disgrace”.

He said, “Developed countries are fully aware of the cost of climate action, which is running into trillions of dollars annually. Yet they had the audacity to offer this paltry amount.”  

Renowned activist Greta Thunberg also slammed the draft text on climate finance, calling it “a complete disaster” and a “death sentence” for millions already vulnerable to the climate crisis.

At the U.N. climate conference in Baku, countries are required to reach an agreement on a new climate finance package to help developing countries cut greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the warming world.

The summit was scheduled to conclude on Friday (November 22, 2024) but spilt into overtime as developed nations only presented a concrete climate finance figure in the closing hours. 

The $250 billion amount they have offered is a far cry from the trillions required to tackle the escalating climate emergency. Developing nations have been demanding at least $1.3 trillion annually — 13 times the $100 billion pledged in 2009 — starting in 2025 to address their escalating climate challenges.  They have said that a significant portion of this $1.3 trillion should come directly in public funding from developed countries. 

Panama Climate Envoy Juan Carlos Monterrey Gomez, left, and Wopke Hoekstra, EU climate commissioner, attend a session on climate targets during the COP29 U.N. Climate Summit, Thursday, Nov. 21, 2024, in Baku, Azerbaijan. (AP Photo/Sergei Grits)
| Photo Credit: Sergei Grits

A new draft text released early on Thursday (November 21, 2024) which will form the basis of any deal reached at United Nations climate talks on money for developing countries to transition to clean energy and adapt to climate change left out a crucial sticking point: how much wealthy nations will pay.

Negotiators at the talks — known as COP29 — in Baku, Azerbaijan, are trying to close the gap between the $1.3 trillion the developing world says is needed in climate finance and the few hundred billion that richer nations have been prepared to pay.

Ali Mohamed, chair of the African Group of Negotiators told The Associated Press on Thursday (November 21, 2024) that how much money is on the table “is most critical” to finding a deal, and that’s what’s missing from the draft deal.

The draft text “presents two extreme ends of the aisle without much in between,” said Li Shuo, Asia Society Policy Institute Director. “Other than capturing the ground standing of both sides, this text hardly does anything more.”

Mohamed Adow, director of the think tank Power Shift Africa, expressed disappointment in the draft. “We came here to talk about money. The way you measure money is with numbers. We need a cheque but all we have right now is a blank piece of paper,” he said.

Independent experts say that at least $1 trillion is needed in finance to help transition away from planet-warming fossil fuels and toward clean energy like solar and wind, better adapt to the effects of climate change and pay for losses and damages caused by extreme weather.

There are three big parts of the issue where negotiators need to find agreement: How big the numbers are, how much is grants or loans, and who contributes.

Rob Moore, associate director at European think tank E3G said that “negotiators need to make a huge amount of progress over the next few days”, particularly on the issue of how much.

 Also read | COP29: India voices dissent on ‘discriminatory trade barriers linked to carbon emissions

Official observers of the talks from the International Institute of Sustainable Development who are allowed to sit in on the closed meetings reported that negotiators have now agreed on not expanding the list of countries that will contribute to global climate funds — at least at these talks. Linda Kalcher, of the think tank Strategic Partnerships, said on the question of grants or loans, the draft text suggests “the need for grants and better access to finance”.

She added that the lack of numbers in the draft text could be a “bluff”. The COP29 presidency, which prepares the texts “should know more…than what they put on the table”, she said.

Andreas Sieber, associate director of global policy and campaigns at the environmental group 350.org said the text handed down this morning included a range of options, some bad, some good. “I’m pretty nervous that there are still so many outstanding options. There is a lot to be decided by ministers,” he said.

But Iskander Erzini Vernoit, director of Moroccan climate think-tank Imal Initiative for Climate and Development, said he was “at a loss for words at how disappointed we are at this stage to have come this far without serious numbers on the table and serious engagement from the developed countries”.

He said that some developed nations “are slowly waking up” to the fact that keeping warming to below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times will require over a trillion dollars in finance. “But many are still asleep at the wheel,” he said.

Experts said on Thursday (Nov. 21) that a deal is still a long way off, and the summit appeared headed toward the same drama and overtime finish as seen in previous years.

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump .
| Photo Credit: Reuters

With the Republicans firmly in control of the U.S. government, a seismic shift in American climate policy is imminent, threatening to unravel years of slow but hard-earned progress in addressing the climate crisis.

With president-elect Donald Trump referring to climate change as a “hoax”, the most devastating effect will be a diplomatic retreat in global negotiations, along with a possible withdrawal from the Paris Agreement (PA). U.S. climate negotiators will likely explain inaction with references to “domestic political constraints”, which American environmental advocates, frustrated by limited options, may also use as a shield while exhorting other major economies in the global South to take up the slack.

Also Read | How much can US president-elect Donald Trump derail global climate action?

An alarming project proposal

Project 2025, developed by The Heritage Foundation, brings together the vision of many conservative interests and is expected to be unleashed from the start of Mr. Trump’s presidency, even though he distanced himself from it during his campaign. It envisions a reduction in federal climate science programmes across several departments. The installation of politically appointed “science advisers” at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signals a concerning shift away from independent scientific oversight. This accompanies the potential dismantling of the EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding, which forms the legal backbone of climate regulation by identifying greenhouse gases (GHGs) as public health threats. This implies that GHG emissions may no longer be included in future environmental legislation. The plan also calls for ending green subsidies and opposing “climate reparations” to developing nations, effectively abandoning any pretence of climate justice.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of the Biden administration, the most ambitious U.S. climate legislation to date, is especially targeted by Project 2025, but it may oddly survive due to its widespread economic benefits, particularly in Republican districts that have seen substantial clean energy investments and job creation. Fossil fuel companies anticipate expanded operational freedom — a stance not unique to one party, as evidenced by previous bipartisan equivocation on fracking. Scientific institutions that work on climate change could face severe cuts in federal funding. In particular, research into renewable energy and battery storage faces significant reduction, handicapping the ability to compete in the growing global clean energy economy.

These changes come when climate-driven disasters demand a coordinated, robust response. Indeed, it is mystifying how climate disinformation and misinformation can thrive in an era of intensifying climate-induced disasters, as witnessed in South America with hurricanes Helene and Ida. As this false messaging deepens under Mr. Trump, the public will be more disconnected from the scientific realities of climate change. The proposed dismantling of climate science infrastructure is more than just a policy reversal; it is a retreat from reality itself, one that future generations will judge harshly.

EDITORIAL | ​Testing time: On climate action and President Trump

Unfortunately, climate change will not pause for political convenience. While policy may shift with elections, the physics of GHG emissions is consistent. Based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Synthesis Report on Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), we are significantly off track from meeting both NDC commitments and PA temperature goals. Current NDCs would lead to global emissions of 51.5 Gt of CO2 equivalent by 2030, a level only 2.6% lower than in 2019. This falls far short of the about 43% reduction needed for the 1.5°C target and 27% for the 2°C target.

Even with full implementation of all NDCs, we are heading towards temperature increases of up to 2.8°C of warming. The current trajectory would consume 86% of the remaining carbon budget by 2030 for the desirable target of 1.5°C. The report emphasises an urgent need for increased NDC ambition, substantial over-achievement of current NDCs, or both. Without enhanced action, the required post-2030 emission reductions would need to be dramatically steeper to compensate for this slow start.

The 29th global meeting of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP29) is going on in Azerbaijan. The lame-duck Biden administration will be reluctant to make major commitments on finance. As was the case under previous Republican administrations, one can expect American delegates at COP29 to blame their political leaders for their inaction, while aware that the U.S. is responsible for about a quarter of GHGs generated by humanity.

Also Read | Climate experts worry about Donald Trump’s re-election impact

Rays of hope

Still, there may be reasons for cautious hope. Globally, the clean energy transition has gained considerable momentum, driven by market forces. Even Republican-led States in the U.S. have embraced renewable energy investments, recognising the economic opportunities they bring to their communities. The likely survival of the IRA demonstrates how clean energy’s economic benefits can create durable political constituencies. U.S. negotiators at the climate conference will tell us that States, cities, and businesses increasingly view climate action as essential to their long-term prosperity. While there is room for domestic action within the U.S., we must be clear-eyed. The U.S. will not support global climate finance or take responsibility for being the largest cumulative emitter of GHGs. Climate justice will seriously get stalled at a moment when the world can least afford delay. The challenge lies in preserving and building upon existing progress, while finding new paths in an increasingly hostile international political environment.

Sujatha Byravan is a scientist based in Chennai; Sudhir Chella Rajan is a professor at IIT Madras. Views are personal

Almost everyone in India is now vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, former chief scientist of the World Health Organisation Dr Soumya Swaminathan has said, underscoring the urgent need for cross-ministerial and international collaboration to address its effects on health, gender and economic stability in the country.

Swaminathan pointed to women and children as especially vulnerable to these climate-driven health risks.

In an interview with PTI on the sidelines of global climate talks COP29 here in Azerbaijan’s capital, Swaminathan called for a concerted approach, saying, “practically everyone in India is now vulnerable to climate change impacts, from extreme heat to vector-borne diseases. Addressing this requires close cooperation.”

“We know that climate change has disproportionate impacts on women and children,” she explained, noting how women, particularly in rural areas, face increased health risks due to continued reliance on solid fuels for cooking.

She emphasised that “access to clean energy for everyone is a priority.”

This, she argued, would not only reduce health risks associated with indoor air pollution but also lessen India’s carbon footprint, marking a crucial step toward sustainable development.

Climate-related health risks in India are varied, ranging from immediate effects such as respiratory illnesses due to air pollution, to long-term issues like malnutrition stemming from disrupted agricultural cycles.

Swaminathan noted that more than 80 per cent of India’s population is now exposed to these risks, emphasizing that “everybody is now vulnerable,” from rural farmers to urban migrants.

She highlighted the specific challenges faced by the urban poor, especially migrants who live in peri-urban areas with inadequate housing and sanitation, which exposes them to greater risks during floods and extreme weather events.

With health as a central theme, Swaminathan stressed the benefits of green public transportation, an initiative she described as a “win-win solution.”

“Carbon-neutral public transport will not only reduce air pollution but also promote physical activity and thereby improve health,” she said, adding that reducing pollution would positively impact public health by curbing respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.

She also highlighted that India’s urban centres are hotspots for these health issues due to dense populations and high pollution levels.

Swaminathan called for policies that integrate both health and climate objectives, stressing that this approach can drive development while building resilience against climate risks.

“If we do that kind of analysis, we can invest in actions that promote both development and reduce our carbon footprint,” she noted, advocating for policies that prioritise “development with a climate-resilient focus.”

Examples of such integrated actions include promoting clean cooking fuels, improving access to safe drinking water, and investing in infrastructure that can withstand extreme weather.

Dr Swaminathan went further to advocate for a gendered approach to climate policy, urging policymakers to “put a spotlight on women but also the poorest communities.”

She argued that gender equity and social equity are essential to effective climate policy, explaining that “by taking a gendered perspective in all policies, we can ensure more inclusive and effective climate action.”

Swaminathan called for greater research on climate impacts that are gender-specific, noting that this data would help policymakers create more targeted, meaningful interventions.

The economic costs of climate-driven health impacts are also severe.

Swaminathan pointed to recent studies indicating that climate-related air pollution alone costs the global economy trillions of dollars annually, affecting productivity, agriculture, and even tourism.

“If you look at the GDP loss and workplace productivity lost due to air pollution, it’s enormous – in the trillions,” she said. This, she argued, makes climate action not just a moral imperative but an economic necessity.

Addressing air pollution as a cross-border issue, Swaminathan noted that pollution does not recognise borders, making it crucial for India and other nations to engage in global collaborations.

“Air pollution today is the single largest risk factor to health,” she said, adding “It’s not a problem one country can solve on its own.”

She referenced the Our Common Air (OCA) Commission, a global effort she is part of, which has been working with international bodies like WHO and UNEP to promote global standards and monitoring mechanisms for air quality.

“We need a system where every country has air quality monitors and updates its data, including on super pollutants like methane and black carbon,” Swaminathan said, adding that these pollutants are highly dangerous yet often overlooked.

Swaminathan further explained the value of local data, which she argued would give a more accurate picture of pollution’s impact on different regions of India.

“Policymakers want to see data from their own regions; it makes the issue real for them and helps design local solutions,” she said.

Reflecting on the invisible nature of pollution’s health impacts, Swaminathan commented, “When the air pollution is visible, people recognize it as a problem, but often it’s invisible, and people become accustomed to it.”

She stressed that while death rates from pollution-related illnesses are often discussed, policymakers should focus on the widespread chronic illnesses caused by poor air quality.

“It’s not only about death – it’s about chronic ill health that impacts quality of life and productivity,” she said, pointing out that young children and the elderly are especially vulnerable.

For Swaminathan, tackling climate change is fundamentally linked to India’s development goals.

“For us, development is still a key priority,” she asserted. While India has made strides in increasing access to electricity and clean water, she stressed that much work remains, especially in rural areas where communities lack basic infrastructure.

Her vision for India’s climate adaptation involves not only mitigating health risks but also ensuring that development initiatives – from housing to sanitation – are climate-resilient.

Swaminathan expressed optimism about India’s potential to lead in climate adaptation through innovation, global cooperation, and commitment to sustainable development goals.

She pointed to Indian cities as potential leaders in air quality initiatives and green infrastructure, stating that “India can be a model for sustainable urbanization if we prioritize both development and environmental health.”

(This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

File picture of a woman wearing a mask as she rides in Shanghai, China
| Photo Credit: Reuters

Cities in Asia and the United States emit the most heat-trapping gas that feeds climate change, with Shanghai the most polluting, according to new data that combines observations and artificial intelligence.

Seven states or provinces spew more than 1 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases, all of them in China, except Texas, which ranks sixth, according to new data from an organisation co-founded by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and released Friday (November 15, 2024) at the United Nations climate talks in Baku, Azerbaijan.

Nations at the talks are trying to set new targets to cut such emissions and figure out how much rich nations will pay to help the world with that task.

Using satellite and ground observations, supplemented by artificial intelligence to fill in gaps, Climate Trace sought to quantify heat-trapping carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, as well as other traditional air pollutants worldwide, including for the first time in more than 9,000 urban areas.

Earth’s total carbon dioxide and methane pollution grew 0.7% to 61.2 billion metric tons with the short-lived but extra potent methane rising 0.2%. The figures are higher than other datasets “because we have such comprehensive coverage and we have observed more emissions in more sectors than are typically available,” said Gavin McCormick, Climate Trace’s co-founder.

Shanghai leads

Shanghai’s 256 million metric tons of greenhouse gases led all cities and exceeded those from the nations of Colombia or Norway. Tokyo’s 250 million metric tons would rank in the top 40 of nations if it were a country, while New York City’s 160 million metric tons and Houston’s 150 million metric tons would be in the top 50 of countrywide emissions. Seoul, South Korea, ranks fifth among cities at 142 million metric tons.

“One of the sites in the Permian Basin in Texas is by far the No. 1 worst polluting site in the entire world,” Gore said. “And maybe I shouldn’t have been surprised by that, but I think of how dirty some of these sites are in Russia and China and so forth. But Permian Basin is putting them all in the shade.”

India among most increases

China, India, Iran, Indonesia and Russia had the biggest increases in emissions from 2022 to 2023, while Venezuela, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States had the biggest decreases in pollution.

The dataset — maintained by scientists and analysts from various groups — also looked at traditional pollutants such as carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, ammonia, sulfur dioxide and other chemicals associated with dirty air. Burning fossil fuels releases both types of pollution, Mr. Gore said.

This “represents the single biggest health threat facing humanity,” Mr. Gore said.

Mr. Gore criticised the hosting of climate talks, called COPs, by Azerbaijan, an oil nation and site of the world’s first oil wells, and by the United Arab Emirates last year.

“It’s unfortunate that the fossil fuel industry and the petrostates have seized control of the COP process to an unhealthy degree,” Mr. Gore said. “Next year in Brazil, we’ll see a change in that pattern. But, you know, it’s not good for the world community to give the No. 1 polluting industry in the world that much control over the whole process.”

Lula calls for change

Brazil President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has called for more to be done on climate change and has sought to slow deforestation since returning for a third term as president. But Brazil last year produced more oil than both Azerbaijan and the United Arab Emirates, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

At a press conference Friday by the Alliance of Small Island States, it’s Chair, Cedric Schuster, said the negotiating bloc feels the need to remind everyone else why the talks matter.

“We’re here to defend the Paris agreement,” Mr. Schuster said, referring to the climate deal in 2015 to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit). “We’re concerned that countries are forgetting that protecting the world’s most vulnerable is at the core of this framework.”

BASIC countries, including India, have asked developed countries to honour their commitments to provide climate finance rather than “diluting obligations” and rejected attempts by the rich nations to shift their financial responsibilities during negotiations at the ongoing COP29
| Photo Credit: Reuters

BASIC countries, including India, have asked developed countries to honour their commitments to provide climate finance rather than “diluting obligations” and rejected attempts by the rich nations to shift their financial responsibilities during negotiations at the ongoing COP29 here.

As the annual climate change summit entered the fourth day on Thursday (November 14, 2024), Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC) also reiterated the need to fully implement the Paris Agreement 2015, a legally binding international treaty.

The Paris Agreement aims at substantially reducing global greenhouse gas emissions to hold global temperature increase to well below 2 degrees Celsius and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels (with a baseline 1850-1900).

India, Egypt, and the Independent Alliance of Latin America and the Caribbean (AILAC) also called for clear pathways to convert financial pledges into binding contribution agreements.

Through the negotiations on Wednesday (November 13, 2024) and Thursday (November 14, 2024), the G-77/CHINA grouping which also includes India called for a balanced New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on climate finance that is responsive to developing countries’ needs.

The grouping also sought a technology implementation programme supported by the operating entities of the Financial Mechanism.

The developed countries have emphasised the importance of increasing global climate ambition and have called for all nations, including emerging economies, to enhance their net-zero targets and implementation efforts.

However, these rich nations are facing criticism for not fully delivering on their own commitments, particularly regarding climate finance and support for developing countries.

In response, India, along with Brazil, South Africa and China as part of BASIC bloc, reiterated the need for full and effective implementation of the Paris Agreement.

“The BASIC bloc rejected attempts by developed countries to shift their financial responsibilities,” multiple negotiators confirmed to PTI.

The poor, developing countries also asked rich, developed countries to honour their commitments to provide climate finance rather than “diluting obligations”, a negotiator from Brazil said.

Meanwhile, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) added that current financial pledges fall far short of what’s necessary for meaningful climate action, underscoring a call for urgent and scaled-up contributions.

With these pressures mounting, the co-chairs of COP29 announced they would prepare a draft decision to formalise these arrangements under both the COP (the Conference of Parties) and the CMA (Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement) frameworks, another negotiator said.

The Arab Group and the Republic of Korea further stressed that guidance for parties must align strictly with the Paris Agreement’s terms, defending the autonomy of nationally determined contributions (NDCs), actions taken by each nation to restrict greemnhouse gases’ emissions to collectively keep temperature rise under check.

India opposed any new top-down regulations imposed under the guise of “features,” arguing that they compromise national sovereignty in climate commitments.

“Developed countries, including Japan and the U.S., pushed for the quantification of climate goals by all nations and advocated aligning targets with the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold — a position supported by the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) but opposed by India,” a negotiator said.

As discussions moved forward, the Arab Group urged developed countries to ramp up their financial support, while India, AILAC, and Egypt emphasised that developed nations must deliver on promised climate finance by formalising their pledges as binding contribution agreements.

Amid intense negotiations, the co-chairs extended the schedule to resolve these critical issues and pave the way for an ambitious, actionable financial framework.