There could never be a worse time for the United Nations to be negotiating on climate change. Post-pandemic inflation has devastated countries around the world, straining public budgets and distracting governments from climate action. Conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East continue unabated; It confuses the priorities of powerful countries such as Russia, Iran and the European Union. Most importantly, The USA just elected Donald TrumpHe called climate change a “hoax” and pulled the United States out of the 2015 Paris climate agreement during his first term in office.

However, within days, thousands of negotiators and activists will gather in Baku, Azerbaijan, to try to make progress in the global climate fight. This year’s conference, known as COP29, is widely regarded as a transitional event, even without the significant significance of the 2015 Paris talks. The summit held in Dubai last yearThis saw the world’s nations finally agree to move away from fossil fuels. Still, next week negotiators plan to tackle key issues that will determine both how the world will reduce carbon emissions and how developing countries will bear the cost of increasing climate disasters.

Here’s what you need to pay attention to:

A new target for international climate aid

The most important agenda item of COP29 the so-called “new collective quantitative target” A target that determines how much climate aid money rich countries should send to poor countries. This financing is expected to help developing countries transition to renewable energy and adapt to climate impacts such as drought and sea level rise. Negotiations will be tense because rich countries past commitments were reneged onand most of the money they gave to have Those sent were in the form of expensive loans or The value of the climate fight is questionable. All this is on top of the fact that developing countries and many experts argue that current aid commitments are not low enough. A UN report published earlier this week specifically found that adaptation efforts were underfunded by between $180 and $360 billion annually.

“It’s not just about the volume of money,” said Emilie Beauchamp, an advocate at the International Institute for Sustainable Development, a climate-focused think tank. “This is about whether the funding actually reaches those who need it most.”

Negotiators aim to set a new goal by the end of the COP. Vulnerable countries are pushing for an annual commitment totaling trillions of dollars. But there are still important questions about who should deposit money and who should receive it. US and Europe call for massive economies like China and rich petrostates like Saudi Arabia When the UN first began negotiations on climate change, they continued to contribute funds despite being considered “developing” countries. These countries have resisted these calls, pointing to the fact that the United States and Europe have historically been responsible for more total emissions. This geopolitical stalemate has delayed progress in negotiations for months, which is key to an overall global agreement on climate aid.

It takes the slack off from the USA

The first few days of every COP see a parade of announcements by world leaders and their senior ministers who take to the stage to announce and measure their countries’ commitment to the climate fight. There will be an elephant in this year’s announcements: The United States, the world’s largest economy and the largest historical emitter, will most likely officially withdraw from the international climate fight when Trump takes office next year. Current President Joe Biden is not attending the COP, and even if senior administration officials make new promises, it may be difficult for them to be taken seriously by other countries.

The question is whether other major emitters, particularly China and the European Union, will step up their ambitions to plug the gap Trump is likely to create. Ministers of these countries are probably preparing for Trump’s victory. But as both Europe and China have struggled with economic woes in recent years, it is unclear how much other governments will be willing to commit to clean energy and adaptation investment.

Coordinating the global energy transition

The big news of last year’s COP28 was the “UAE consensus” document, an agreement in which all the world’s major economies, including petrostates such as the United States and Saudi Arabia, pledged to move away from fossil fuels. Language calling for “a fair, orderly and equitable transition of energy systems away from fossil fuels” was carefully crafted, but now needs to be implemented. The summit in Baku is unlikely to see another agreement of this scale, but countries will detail more specific commitments they plan to make to move the energy transition forward.

One of the biggest action items regulation methaneIt is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The United States, the European Union and Canada have announced sweeping new regulations on the release of methane from oil wells and industrial facilities in recent years; But negotiators at the COP are expected to make new progress on restricting production from agriculture, which accounts for about a third of agricultural commodities. global emissions of gas.

“A few years ago (agriculture) was like the third rail of methane; you didn’t want to touch it because the policy around it was so, so bad,” said Jonathan Banks, senior policy advisor at the Clean Air Task. Force refers to the reaction of farmers in countries such as the Netherlands. “But we have turned a corner in agriculture.”

There will also be major debates about carbon removal and storage technologies proposed by the oil industry, as well as nuclear energy, which has attracted renewed attention in recent years from countries seeking 24-hour energy that does not emit carbon. It has been touted as an important way to reduce emissions. There are fierce disagreements both within and between countries about whether these technologies will constitute climate solutions; A line in last year’s COP28 agreement suggesting coal power could be used for decades as long as it was accompanied by carbon capture raised strong objections from some negotiators.

Distributing climate reparations

Two years ago, countries that had long been wealthy Compensation for their role in causing climate change. The argument goes that because these early industrializing countries have historically been the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, they should send money to poor countries to help them recover from climate-induced disasters that they do little to do. This commitment was the realization of a demand that small island states and developing countries in Africa had been seeking for years.

But the devil is in the details: The new “loss and damage” fund is located at the World Bank. problematic legacy Developing countries and rich countries allocated only $700 million of capital in the new fund; This is a very small portion of the total need. The big question at this year’s COP is whether this fund will be implemented or whether it will be successful. we are stuck in bureaucracy It fails to meet the challenges faced by the countries it aims to help.

Fight in carbon markets

One of the main ways large companies claim they are making progress towards emissions reduction targets is through what is known as a voluntary carbon market. Here’s how it works: When directly reducing climate pollution is too difficult or expensive, a company can buy credits that represent emissions avoided or sequestered elsewhere (for example, through a reforestation project that promises to lock carbon in the trunks of newly planted trees). trees). Now the United Nations is trying to create its own carbon market; but not for companies, but for countries. The aim is to give countries more ways to cooperate to achieve Paris Agreement goals.

Some experts say such a market could accelerate global emissions reductions and reducing the cost of mitigating climate change. However, the issue is highly controversial and environmental groups say a UN-backed carbon market is a possibility. repeating the same shortcomings such as those seen in voluntary markets. Some scientists have criticized carbon markets for legitimizing them.scrap” makes up for it Don’t keep carbon out of the atmosphere permanentlyor this was going to happen anyway.

On: last year’s COPdiplomats no progress made Whatever happens on the development of the UN carbon market, there are disagreements over the types of carbon credits that should be tradeable and the methodologies used to generate them. This year’s COP president vows to get market to “finish line” but disagreements remain likely to continue. Some commentators say Trump’s re-election is “faded enthusiasm“for one strong result.

Joseph Winters contributed to reporting on this article.