Now that the 89th Texas Legislative Session has ended we can broaden our focus on climate change policy. Early summer is the time to (briefly) take our eyes off the challenges of US state and federal climate policy and turn to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate change. The meeting of the Subsidiary Bodies (SB) is held in Bonn, Germany each June and marks the halfway point between the larger Conference of the Parties (COP) meeting held each fall.
SB 62, this year’s convening, is an opportunity for parties to the UNFCCC to assess progress made in implementing decisions made during COP29, which was in Baku, Azerbaijan in November 2024, and to identify remaining work, priorities, and other needs ahead of COP30, which will be held in Belém, Brazil in November 2025.
A major focus of COP29 was the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), which was a new and more ambitious commitment to climate finance from the developed countries to support climate adaptation and mitigation programs in developing countries.
Climate finance is a key way to address the fundamental injustice of climate change, that it is the countries least responsible for the emissions which cause climate change that bear the most significant impacts. The reasoning goes that since developed countries have benefitted historically from oil and gas production in the form of an increased standard of living and economic stability, they must now contribute financially to support developing countries as they respond to climate change.
UNFCCC Executive Secretary Simon Stiell said yesterday that “climate finance is not a favor and it is not charity, it is the bedrock of trust on which the system works.” In other words, unless developed nations have a stake in climate action in the form of obligatory financial contributions, developing countries have no reason to trust they will follow through on other obligations, like emissions mitigation.
The NCQG negotiations at COP29 ended with a new commitment of $1.3 trillion for climate finance. Supporters argue that this number is the largest commitment ever made to climate finance. But developing countries argue that this number still falls far short, possibly as much as an order of magnitude short, of meeting the needs of developing countries who are expending billions of dollars each year to adapt to climate impacts.
That unsettled outcome has led to a tense environment at this year’s Bonn meetings. The opening plenary was delayed for nearly two days because developing countries and developed countries could not agree on whether to include two climate finance items on the agenda.
As Simon Stiell said, the arguments around climate finance are fundamentally about trust. Vulnerable developing countries are unwilling to make ambitious commitments for climate mitigation without some assurance that developed countries, who hold significant privilege and power, will follow through on their commitments.
For the multilateral negotiation process to succeed, developed countries must take seriously developing countries’ reservations about trust, power, and vulnerability. And that will require a deep humility that may not come naturally to most developed countries.
By appealing to ethics of care and the sacred worth of each person, by holding the stories of people struggling with climate impacts around the world, and with our belief in the transforming power of love, faith communities are uniquely equipped to bridge this gap.
Developing countries correctly point out that an effective response to climate change will not be possible without everyone’s participation. We should heed their warning. The voice of wisdom comes in a whisper, not a hurricane.
