While Australia and the European Union have both supported the idea of putting the fund in the World Bank, neither had been as obstinate as the U.S. on that point, Wu says. “It feels like we are designing a fund that fits into the World Bank, not a fund for loss and damage,” said Diann Black-Layne, Antigua and Barbuda’s ambassador for climate change. “If the World Bank is an option that is not negotiable, then stop negotiating. We don’t need to talk about that here for developed countries to go to Washington and form the fund.” (The World Bank headquarters is in Washington, D.C.)
Wu says he was surprised how little the ongoing war in Israel-Palestine has seeped into negotiations, largely technical talks attended mostly by career negotiators. The other background to this week’s discussions, though, is just how little money the U.S. and other rich countries have actually put toward climate finance.
At the urging of then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, wealthy nations in 2009 pledged to, by 2020, raise $100 billion per year to help poorer countries adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change. That year came and went, and that commitment—which falls well short of actual needs, which are projected to reach between $300 and $700 billion per year by 2030 for loss and damage alone—remains unfulfilled. This week, the White House is sending an emergency security package to Congress that would provide $106 billion to arm Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan, and further militarize the U.S.-Mexico border. That, President Biden urged in a rare Oval Office address Thursday night, will “help us build a world that is safer, more peaceful, and more prosperous for our children and grandchildren.”