climate-summit-widening-north-south-rift

The global climate summit has become an annual ritual, high on platitudes and low on substance; a charade that exposes our vulnerabilities in the battle against the deepening climate crisis.

 

Even as climate change wreaks havoc across the world, the nations continue to quarrel over the strategies to reduce carbon emissions and make the planet safer for future generations.

 

One cannot be faulted for being sceptical, even pessimistic, about the outcome of the annual gatherings. There is nothing much to cheer about at the just concluded United Nations Conference of the Parties (COP30) in Belém, a Brazilian city on the edge of the Amazonian rainforest.

 

There was lofty talk about the ‘just, equitable and inclusive’ ways to mitigate the climate crisis and save people from the catastrophic impact of the climate crisis, but the fundamental differences between the developed and developing countries on climate funding and technology transfer remain unresolved.

 

In the era of Trumpism, marked by anti-science policies and the spread of conspiracy theories, the political support for the climate change movement has been dwindling.

 

Widening north-south rift

 

At the core of the global battle against climate change lies the question of who should fund the mitigation efforts. The rich and industrialised nations that have contributed most to the stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have the moral responsibility to aid the developing world in transitioning to low-carbon economies and preparing for climate change effects.

 

But the rich nations are only trying to shirk their climate finance obligations. It is ironic that the poorer nations, which have done the least to cause climate change, are made to suffer the most from its consequences. One wonders how many broken promises the Global South will endure before the West takes real responsibility for tackling the climate crisis.

 

It is a legitimate demand that the rich nations must deliver at least $1.3 trillion in no-strings-attached grants to help them deal with climate impacts.

 

The Belem summit once again highlighted the perennial imbalance in global climate diplomacy — where lofty figures are announced but often fail to translate into real, meaningful action for those who need the most. While fighting climate change is everyone’s job, the rich and developed countries must bear the bulk of that responsibility, not just because they have caused most of the emissions but also because they have greater resources and capacity to act.

 

Developing countries have called for a new Just Transition Mechanism under the UN climate framework. The new proposal, backed by India, has exposed sharp divides between the Global South and industrialised economies over finance, governance, and responsibility.

 

The proposed model would give institutional weight to the principles of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement. It would help in coordinating finance, technology transfer, and capacity building across national and international levels.

 

The proposal seeks to move beyond conceptual discussions to a concrete institutional arrangement under the UNFCCC that could operationalise fairness and equity in the global energy transition.

 

It would ensure that developing nations — already burdened by debt, uneven access to technology, and fragile energy systems — receive the support they need to pursue climate action without stalling growth or livelihoods.

 

India echoed the call for a mechanism rooted in justice and inclusion. It urged that the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP) be designed to integrate the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) and ensure that transitions are people-centred and whole-of-economy.

 

Backlash from the rich

 

However, the proposal met resistance from developed economies, including Japan, Norway, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Australia, and Canada. They argued that creating a new mechanism would duplicate existing institutions under the Paris Agreement and add bureaucratic complexity.

 

Instead, they urged that the Just Transition Work Programme advance its work through existing modalities, institutions, and funding frameworks.

 

Norway warned that a new body could take up to five years to become operational, diverting resources from immediate needs. It noted that less than 50 per cent of activities under the UNFCCC’s core budget are currently funded and said any new institutional arrangement would deepen financial strain.

 

Also read: Can the world prevent a genocide in Sudan?

 

At the crux of these arguments lies a broader North–South fault line over finance, control, and timing. Developed nations — already reluctant to scale up climate finance commitments — expressed concern about the budgetary implications of a new body, preferring to channel just transition work through existing institutions. Developing countries, in turn, argued that this position reveals a lack of political will to deliver on equity and shared responsibility.

 

Grim signals

 

While the polemical fight among nations continues, the public miseries due to the deepening climate crisis are on the rise. The latest UN report says global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise inexorably; the world is on course to breach the guardrail of 1.5°C temperature rise by the early 2030s. This is devastating news, as even with a 1.2°C temperature rise, catastrophic extreme events are battering just about every part of the world.

 

Since the Paris Agreement was signed a decade ago, the global CO2 emissions have actually increased from about 39.6 billion tonnes to about 41.6 billion tonnes. In a wake-up call for the world, the year 2024 saw global temperatures breach the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold – a key marker in the Paris Agreement aimed at limiting global warming.

 

When the average temperatures exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, it spells danger for the planet. The signs are there for everyone to see. Extreme weather events have been wreaking havoc across the world. Sea surface temperatures have hit record highs, while melting of sea ice in both the Arctic and Antarctic has added to the alarming trends.

 

The climate crisis is likely to exacerbate food and water shortages, and could increase migration, adding to pressures on states and potentially sparking border issues. The extreme weather events should serve as a wake-up call for governments. The window to secure a safe future is rapidly closing. The choices we make today will decide the fate of the planet tomorrow.

 

Unfortunately, the climate summits have been reduced to talking shops. Ideally, they should serve as platforms to hold the nations accountable for climate actions.

 

For India, the COP30 deliberations provided yet another opportunity to voice the concerns of the developing countries. India cites its low per capita emissions to counter any international demand to cap its overall emissions, arguing that it needs to lift its people to similar standards of living as in the developed countries.

 

Now or never

 

Despite the lofty announcements, the nations have failed to mitigate the crisis and to save people from bearing the brunt of the extreme weather events.

 

The days of mere rhetoric are over. Global leaders must now deliver on pledges made over the past decade. Nations cannot afford to remain complacent about their targets on transitioning to renewable energy and phasing out fossil fuels. While the path forward is undoubtedly challenging, it is also an opportunity to build a more resilient, equitable, and sustainable world.

 

Developed nations, in particular, bear a historical responsibility to lead the charge, both through their own transitions and by supporting vulnerable countries in adapting to climate change impacts. Critically, the private sector also has a pivotal role to play. Industries must invest in green technologies, and financial institutions must align their portfolios with sustainable practices.

 

By acting collectively and with urgency, we can mitigate the worst impacts of climate change. During the COP29, held in Azerbaijan’s capital, Baku, last year, the developed countries’ offer of $300 billion in annual climate aid for developing countries by 2035 was too little and too late.