South Asia experienced the terrible impacts of global warming during late April and early May. Temperatures almost 50 degrees Celsius in some cities in the region. These high temperatures came alongside dangerous flooding in Northeast India and in Bangladesh, as the rivers burst their banks, with taking place in places like Sunamganj in Sylhet, Bangladesh.
Saleemul Haq, the director of the , is from Bangladesh. He is a veteran of the United Nations climate change negotiations. When Haq read a tweet by Marianne Karlsen, the co-chair of the UN鈥檚 Adaptation Committee, which that 鈥淸m]ore time is needed to reach an agreement,鈥 while referring to the negotiations on loss and damage finance, he : 鈥淭he one thing we have run out of is Time! Climate change impacts are already happening, and poor people are suffering losses and damages due to the emissions of the rich. Talk is no longer an acceptable substitute for action (money!)鈥 Karlsen鈥檚 comment came in light of the treacle-slow process of on the 鈥渓oss and damage鈥 agenda for the 27th Conference of Parties or COP27 meeting to be held in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, in November.
Developed countries of the world agreed to a US annual adaptation assistance fund at COP15 in 2009, which was supposed to be paid by 2020. This fund was intended to assist countries of the Global South to shift their reliance on carbon to renewable sources of energy and to adapt to the realities of the climate catastrophe. At the time of the Glasgow COP26 meeting in November 2021, however, developed countries were unable to meet this commitment. The $100 billion may seem like a modest fund, but is far less than the 鈥溾 that will be required to ensure comprehensive climate action.
The richer states 鈥 led by the West 鈥 have not only refused to seriously fund adaptation but they have also reneged on the original agreements, such as the (1997); the United States Congress has to ratify this important step toward mitigating the climate crisis. The US has shifted the goalposts for reducing its methane emissions and has refused to account for the of carbon emissions by the military.
Germany鈥檚 money goes to war not climate
Germany hosts the secretariat of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. As a prelude to COP27, the UN held a in Bonn on climate change in June. The talks ended in acrimony over finance for what is known as 鈥渓oss and damage鈥. The European Union consistently blocked all discussions on compensation.
Eddy P茅rez of the Climate Action Network, Canada, : 鈥淐onsumed by their narrow interests, rich nations and in particular countries in the European Union, came to the Bonn Climate Conference to block, delay and undermine efforts from people and communities on the frontlines addressing the losses and damage caused by fossil fuels.鈥
On the table is the hypocrisy of countries such as Germany, which claims to lead on these issues, but instead has been sourcing fossil fuels overseas and spending increasing funds on their military. At the same time, these countries have denied support to developing countries facing devastation from climate-induced superstorms and rising seas.
After the recent German elections, hopes were raised that the new coalition of the Social Democrats with the Green Party would lift up the green agenda. However, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has 鈧100 billion for the military, 鈥渢he biggest increase in the country鈥檚 military expenditure since the end of the Cold War鈥. He has also committed to 鈥淸spending] more than 2 percent of the country鈥檚 gross domestic product on the military鈥. This means more money for the military and less money for climate mitigation and green transformation.
The military and climate catastrophe
The money that is being swallowed into the Western military establishments does not only drift away from any climate spending but also promotes greater climate catastrophe. The US military is the largest institutional polluter on the planet. The maintenance of its more than 800 military bases around the world, for instance, means that the US military nearly 1.5 million litres of oil daily.
The world鈥檚 governments $2 trillion on weapons in 2021, with the leading countries being those who are the richest (as well as the most sanctimonious on the climate debate). Money is available for war but not to deal with the climate catastrophe.
The way weapons have poured into the Ukraine conflict gives many of us pause. The prolongation of that war has 49 million more people at risk of famine in 46 countries, to the 鈥淗unger Hotspots鈥 report by the United Nations agencies, as a result of the extreme weather conditions and due to conflicts. Conflict and organised violence were the main sources of food insecurity in Africa and the Middle East, specifically in northern Nigeria, central Sahel, eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Somalia, South Sudan, Yemen and Syria. The war in Ukraine has exacerbated the food crisis by driving up the price of agricultural commodities. Russia and Ukraine together account for around 30% of the global wheat trade. So, the longer the Ukraine war continues, the more 鈥渉unger hotspots鈥 will grow, taking food insecurity beyond just Africa and the Middle East.
While one COP meeting has already taken place on the African continent, another will take place later this year. First, Abidjan, C么te d鈥橧voire, hosted the UN Convention to Combat Desertification in May and then Sharm el-Sheikh will host the UN Climate Change Conference. These are major forums for African states to put on the table the great damage done to parts of the continent due to the climate catastrophe.
When the representatives of the countries of the world gather at Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, in November for COP27, they will hear Western representatives talk about climate change, make pledges, and then do everything possible to continue to exacerbate the catastrophe. What we saw in Bonn is a prelude to what will be a fiasco in Sharm el-Sheikh.
[This article was produced by . Murad Qureshi is a former member of the London Assembly and a former chair of the Stop the War Coalition.]