US election uncertainty clouds UN progress on climate finance By Reuters

(This Sept. 21 story was amended to add the word “historic” in paragraph 2)

By Valerie Volcovici and Kate Abnett

(Reuters) – Countries have a chance to use this week’s U.N. meetings in New York to resolve wide differences over raising the annual global goal for climate finance, but uncertainty over the U.S. election could jeopardize progress before the next UN climate summit in November.

Negotiators told Reuters the countries were reluctant to spell out their positions before they knew who might win the US presidential vote on November 5 and set climate policy for the world’s biggest economy – and biggest polluter in history – for the next four years.

But by waiting for a response until November, countries could jeopardize the chance of reaching a new deal before the world’s current $100 billion funding commitment expires at the end of this year, negotiators and observers warned.

“Elections are in the reckoning” of global climate talks, said financial negotiator Michai Robertson of the Alliance of Small Island States.

Governments are weighing different scenarios for possible victories by Vice President Kamala Harris, who along with President Joe Biden helped pass the largest domestic climate spending bill in US history, or former President Donald Trump, a climate change denier who wants to boost fossil fuels. They also envision a third scenario with the US in limbo for months due to an uncertain or delayed election result.

“It’s an unspoken understanding that the uncertainty of the US election affects how countries position themselves,” Robertson said. While some rich countries have said they would provide more money, they are not saying how much more and will “wait and see where the US goes.”

SIMPLICITY TARGET

This week’s UN General Assembly marks the last gathering of all countries before the COP29 climate change summit begins on November 11 in Baku, Azerbaijan – less than a week after the US vote.

But agreeing on a new goal and whether to expand the donor base is proving difficult. Too high a target could mean countries fall short of the full amount, which would likely create tension and mistrust among developing countries that rely on these funds.

Too low a target would leave too many vulnerable and underserved as global warming continues to escalate. The head of the UN climate agency, Simon Stiell, estimated that trillions would be needed annually to adequately help poorer countries switch to clean energy and prepare for the conditions of a warmer world.

Failure to set a new target before the start of 2025 could jeopardize future climate change negotiations, a senior official from Azerbaijan’s COP29 presidency has warned.

Azerbaijan does not even want to consider the possibility of failure, the COP29 official told Reuters.

DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS

Regardless of who wins the US vote, this year’s US climate negotiators are already limited in what they can commit to, although a Harris presidency would ensure more continuity.

“Negotiators are working for the current administration, not the next,” noted Jonathan Pershing, a former US delegate who helped lead the country’s talks at the 2015 Paris climate summit.

As a presidential candidate, Harris has said he supports Biden’s negotiating positions on climate change, including a pledge at last year’s COP28 in Dubai to contribute $3 billion to the Green Global Climate Fund.

Neither Biden nor Harris offered a new funding target, but US negotiators said fast-growing economies such as China or the oil-producing Gulf states should contribute funds. In the past, China and some Gulf states have said they should be exempted as developing nations.

Trump, on the other hand, has vowed to withdraw again from the Paris Agreement, as well as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which drives global efforts and climate negotiations among its 198 member states. Only a few countries have avoided the UNFCCC, including Iran, Libya and Yemen.

MARRAKESH SURPRISE

With the US election and UN climate change summits both falling in November, this year’s election uncertainty is not unique.

The contested US election in 2000 coincided with a climate summit that failed to reach an agreement that year, pushing their talks into a special session held five months later in Bonn, Germany.

The next big upset came just a year after the landmark Paris Agreement was signed, when US climate negotiators were caught off guard at the UN summit in Marrakesh with Trump’s defeat of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the presidency .

“The US delegation there was disbanded and the negotiators were left to scramble,” said Alden Meyer, a senior associate at the E3G think tank who has attended every COP.

However, this year is different. There is a new urgency in the fight against climate change, negotiators said, as rising global temperatures are already triggering disasters and climate extremes.

Climate negotiators are also better prepared for unexpected outcomes, said Bezos Earth Fund’s director of sustainable finance Paul Bodnar, who previously served as a U.S. negotiator under former President Barack Obama.

“The difference between now and 2016 is that it was a big surprise in 2016,” he said. After the Trump administration withdrew from the global effort to combat climate change, Bodnar built an alliance of American states and cities that stepped up to maintain a strong US presence in global climate talks.