Ed Miliband is right to say that “there is no route to a stable climate without supporting developing countries to embrace the clean-energy revolution” (Here’s what I learned at Cop29. Rows aside, an unstoppable transition to clean energy is happening, 25 November). However, it is misleading to suggest that the $300bn climate finance goal adopted at Cop29 to help lower-income countries tackle the climate crisis is trebling the previous figure of $100bn when it does not consider inflation adjustments.
It is also a gross exaggeration to say that the deal “will help poorer countries … to decarbonise and protect their populations”. Even without accounting for inflation, it is a tiny fraction of what is needed, with much of it likely to be delivered as debt-inducing loans.
The deal will mean that lower-income countries – which have done little to cause the crisis and are often already highly indebted – are left footing most of the bill for adaptation and loss and damage. Even worse, it will leave people unprotected and the shift to a low-carbon economy will happen unequally, at the expense of the most marginalised communities.
Miliband says it is a time of “massive pressures on public finances”, but this is because of political choices that have repeatedly enabled the wealthiest people and corporations to get away with not paying their fair share, while appropriating the global carbon budget with their outsized emissions.
The climate finance goal will only be a meaningful commitment if rich countries, including the UK, recognise their responsibility and provide most of the funds from public finance. By targeting the biggest and richest polluters, the government can quickly and fairly secure much-needed finance while ensuring that the burden does not fall on ordinary households. Climate finance is neither charity nor a business opportunity – it is a matter of justice and legal obligations.
Chiara Liguori
Senior climate justice policy adviser, Oxfam
• It is unsurprising that Ed Miliband would put a positive spin on the Cop29 outcome, claiming that the energy transition to cleaner energies is happening, but his analysis falls short. First, he fails to mention the UK’s responsibility for historic carbon emissions, which – given the time CO2 remains in the atmosphere – means that simply taking responsibility for its current share (1%) is not enough. Second, he seems to claim that the tripling of the north-to-south financing is a major success. This is emphatically not the view of small island and developing states, especially when the proposed deal risks further encumbering poorer states with debt. Third, he sidesteps the awkward question of resource depletion for renewables and the even more awkward question of north-south commercial ties, which seem not dissimilar to former exploitative relationships.
But the major weakness of the argument is to imagine that there is in fact a “transition” of any sort. A glance at the figures shows clearly that these new energy forms are in addition to others, especially fossil fuels – all of which continue to rise. While a transition in the future is not ruled out, using the term for past or current trends is wrong. The overall picture therefore remains bleak, and the main chance of improvement would be a significant reduction in energy production and use in the global north, and in China. Unfortunately, the economic dogma of GDP growth makes this impossible.
Steve Brown
Fontenay-sous-Bois, France
• Patrick Greenfield’s article highlights how states in Cop29 agreed to establish new common rules for the development of carbon credit markets (24 November). Yet several persistent challenges undermine the credibility of these reformed markets. We believe two major areas of improvement must be addressed to restore this credibility.
The first is greater transparency, which is is one of the methodological requirements of Article 6.4 accepted at COP 29. It encourages transparency in data sources, calculations and monitoring methods used to establish estimates, including those related to the reference scenario, the project’s additionality compared to its effectiveness in reducing emissions, and potential carbon leakages. The supervisory body for Article 6.4 is responsible for ensuring transparency in certification methodologies. But efforts must go further.
It is essential to disclose corporate transactions of carbon credits, as well as the distribution of revenues throughout the value chain. Such transparency would allow better evaluation of the real impact of offset projects and address accusations of “greenwashing”. Solutions such as digital platforms, regulations facilitating carbon credit tracking, publication of exchange prices, and standardised information could fulfil this critical need for transparency.
The second area to be addressed is that the reliability of reference scenarios used to calculate credits must be supported by robust statistical methods. These would allow for more precise reference scenarios, thereby strengthening the robustness and legitimacy of carbon credits. However, these methods increase risks for project developers and may reduce the supply of credits. At the same time, companies appear to lack incentives to prioritise high-quality credits. It is therefore crucial to implement better evaluation and clearer labelling of high-quality credits.
The lack of credibility in carbon credits is not inevitable. Cop29 is a step in the right direction, but it is imperative to intensify transparency requirements and deeply reform evaluation methods to restore full legitimacy to these mechanisms.
Philippe Delacote
Research director, INRAE, and climate economics chair
Tara L’Horty
PhD candidate at INRAE, and climate economics chair
Anna Creti
Professor, Université Paris-Dauphine PSL, and climate economics chair
Andreas Kontoleon
Professor of environmental economics and public policy, University of Cambridge
• Do you have a photograph you’d like to share with Guardian readers? If so, please click here to upload it. A selection will be published in our Readers’ best photographs galleries and in the print edition on Saturdays.
