Climate Summit | Sharm el-Sheikh outlines three proposals to finance climate destruction

The final draft of the agreements proposes three possible mechanisms to help the countries most vulnerable to climate chaos economically.

The climate summit calendar shows that this Friday is (or should be) the day the final deal is signed. Sharm El Sheikh. But after more than two weeks of intense negotiations, the final official day of the summit came, with little closed and much more to be decided. This Friday, the release of the final draft of the Sharm el-Sheikh agreements will be outlined. Three Possible Mechanisms to Finance Loss and Damage from the climate crisis. This is one of the most discussed topics of this summit and one of the big red lines drawn by the countries of the global south to sign the agreement. The request was in official documents, but only hours before the supposed final closure of the summit in Sharm el-Sheikh hesitantly points to three offers but he doesn’t choose any of them.

The first proposal would be immediate creation of a new economic fund to deal with the consequences of climate extremes in the global south. It is anticipated that this independent mechanism could be supervised or coordinated by the United Nations and in turn complemented by other already existing economic initiatives. The second proposal proposes collecting the commitment of countries with this mandate, but defer the creation of a fund until next year. Success in this case would be to summarize the proposal in Sharm el-Sheikh and put it into practice from the Dubai summit (COP28). The third proposition would be: create new financial commitments and channel them through mechanisms that already exist. Here, too, it is recommended that the decision be made now and a margin until next year for them to start working.

According to sources close to the negotiations, all these options have a light and a shadow. this creation of a completely new economic fundfor example, it would have the advantage of centralizing the flow of money from donors to countries in need, but at the disadvantage that it would take time (for all the bureaucracy above all) to become formally operational. which implies the creation of something like this). The signing of new financial commitments, for its part, can speed up the inflow of money into countries that urgently need economic support, but it can also work in a more diffused way.