It is very evident that contrary to many other well-defined terms in the global lexicon, the United Nations has yet to furnish us with a concrete definition of climate finance. This absence of a universally agreed-upon framework begs the question: What falls within the purview of climate finance, and what lies outside its boundaries?

In the absence of a common understanding, investments and substantial financial allocations purportedly designated as climate finance might not authentically fulfill the criteria. In essence, funds disbursed under the guise of climate finance often reveal themselves to be linked, at best tangentially, to climate-related initiatives.

This discrepancy raises a fundamental challenge – distinguishing between funds genuinely committed to addressing climate change and those merely associated with it. By delving into the economic intricacies, we can better understand the impediments that nations face in fulfilling their climate financing commitments and work towards developing sustainable solutions that transcend financial constraints.

Economic Constraints
In the global dialogue on climate change, the issue of climate financing emerges as a source of significant concern for nations worldwide. Acknowledging the imperative to combat climate change, every country recognizes the seriousness of the era we find ourselves in. Effectively addressing this global challenge demands concrete measures, particularly in adopting new technologies and transitioning away from fossil fuels towards cleaner energy sources. However, a crucial obstacle looms large in the form of financial constraints.

The crux of the matter lies in the essential question: where do we obtain the necessary funds to drive meaningful change? Shifting towards cleaner energy alternatives, investing in sustainable practices, and conducting vital research all necessitate substantial financial resources. The economic intricacies surrounding climate financing present a formidable challenge, requiring nations to grapple with the dilemma of balancing environmental commitments against economic realities.

Accountability
In the realm of climate responsibility, two distinct groups emerge: developed nations and developing nations. The evident reality is that developed nations have a historical legacy of substantial carbon emissions. This stark contrast in emission levels underscores the urgency for developed countries to not only fulfill their commitments but to go beyond, actively contributing to the global fight against climate change.

Thus, this points to the developed nations bearing a higher degree of responsibility, given that their industrial activities during the Industrial Revolution significantly contributed to climate change.

While various funds have been established to support global environmental initiatives, the actual contributions fall short of the envisioned scale. Rather than fulfilling their commitments, developed nations often resort to shifting blame onto emerging economies like India and China, alleging insufficient effort on their part. But the financial gap requires a collective and sincere commitment from all. The discourse calls for a re-evaluation of contributions, a transparent examination of promises made, and a shared responsibility in fostering a sustainable future for all.

UNFCCC CoP 28
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) operates on the foundational principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capacities (CBDR-RC). This principle recognizes that each state bears distinct responsibilities and possesses varying capabilities and strategies in addressing climate change. Recently, at the UNFCCC CoP 28 in Dubai, discussions have brought to light the persistent commitment by developed countries to contribute $100 billion annually.

This financial commitment is aimed at funding projects dedicated to combating climate change in developing nations and least-developed countries. The principle of CBDR-RC underscores the imperative for developed nations to fulfill their promises, reflecting a collective responsibility while recognizing the diverse capacities and challenges faced by countries in the global effort to combat climate change.

Gap between promises made and actions taken
The origins of these commitments can be traced back to the Copenhagen Summit in 2009, where developed countries pledged to mobilize $100 billion annually by 2020. Regrettably, this target remains unmet, and the contributing nations have failed to fulfil their financial promises, sparking a disparity between commitments and actions.

Article 9 of the Paris Agreement emphasizes the mandatory nature of Biennial Update Reports (BUR), providing a platform for countries to report progress, financial needs, investments in green energy, and achievements in the fight against climate change. However, a multitude of nations has fallen short of complying with this requirement, casting doubt on the efficacy of international efforts.

At the Glasgow Summit in 2021, developed countries collectively contributed only $79.6 billion, a shortfall of over 20% compared to the self-imposed goal. The divergence between commitment and contribution raises concerns about the sincerity of developed nations in addressing the global climate crisis.

India's Exemplary Path
In stark contrast, India has emerged as a beacon of commitment and action. The nation, as outlined in its third BUR, is on track to achieve increased climate goals. India's financial needs for adaptation and mitigation, derived from its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), stand at $206 billion and $834 billion, respectively. This commitment underscores India's dedication to aligning actions with stated goals.

Reports indicate that developing and least-developed countries in the Global South need close to $6 trillion by 2030 to achieve their climate goals. Going by the expressed needs in their NDCs, the quantified amount approaches $56 trillion. This substantial financial gap underscores the urgency for developed nations to fulfill their commitments and provide the necessary support to vulnerable countries grappling with the impacts of climate change.

Adaptation and mitigation, essential components in addressing climate change, demand concerted efforts. While adaptation involves adjusting to the existing changes, mitigation aims to reduce their effects. Striking a balance between both is ideal for comprehensive climate action.

Reason behind the problem
The existing challenge in addressing climate change finance lies in the absence of a clear and standardized formula delineating the contribution amounts from each country. In 2020, the United States, for instance, provided only 5% of its designated share. Presently, contributions are primarily determined by the size of a nation's economy and its assessed capacity to contribute.

Despite the presence of established funds such as the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and the Global Environment Facility, none have met the requisite funding levels. A significant ambition of the GCF was to reach the target of $100 billion by 2020. However, as of now, this objective remains unmet, highlighting a shortfall in the anticipated financial support.

The GCF's mandate underscores the importance of bridging the financial gap between developed and developing nations, emphasizing the need for concerted efforts to fulfill the fund's intended purpose. To address this, there is a critical need for transparent justifications behind the $100 billion target.

An articulated rationale is imperative, ensuring that this figure is not arbitrary but rather founded on a comprehensive understanding of the financial needs for climate change mitigation and adaptation projects. Establishing a well-defined roadmap for the utilization of these funds is equally crucial in fostering accountability and ensuring that financial resources are directed towards impactful and strategic initiatives.

Another fund is Global Environment Facility which was established in 1992, this represents the oldest fund dedicated to addressing climate-related challenges. The primary objective of this fund is to channel financial contributions towards various initiatives aimed at combating climate change. Notably, it provides crucial financial assistance to five international conventions, serving as a vital resource in endeavors to mitigate the loss of biodiversity and combat the multifaceted impacts of climate change.

Economic trouble vs. climate change
In assessing the financial commitments of affluent nations, it becomes evident that the challenge lies not in their financial capacity but in their priorities. A noteworthy example is the period of the global financial crisis in 2009-10, initiated by the US stock market crash.

During this tumultuous time, wealthy nations swiftly united to contribute a substantial $1.1 trillion in just a few weeks to support the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and various multilateral banks. Contrary to the notion that affluent countries lack the financial means, the core issue lies in the allocation of their resources.

While these nations indisputably possess ample financial resources, the crux of the matter is the determination of their interests and spending priorities. Presently, it is evident that climate financing does not hold the topmost position on the agenda for these nations, raising critical questions about the alignment of economic and climate considerations.

Conclusion
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report serves as a crucial wake-up call, highlighting the significant gaps in climate financing commitments by economically developed nations. The reliance on loans rather than grants raises questions about the sincerity of global efforts to combat climate change.

As the world grapples with the urgent need to address climate-related challenges, nations must revisit their financial strategies and prioritize collaborative, grant-based initiatives. In this context, India's National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) serves as a beacon of proactive commitment, emphasizing the importance of concrete actions in the global fight against climate change.

In conclusion, the global challenge of climate financing is intricately tied to economic troubles, manifesting in a glaring gap between promises made and actions taken. The lack of a universally agreed-upon framework for climate finance blurs the lines, often resulting in funds being tangentially linked to climate initiatives. Developed nations, historically responsible for substantial emissions, fall short of fulfilling their commitments, fostering a climate of accountability discrepancies.

The economic intricacies surrounding climate financing present formidable challenges, requiring a delicate balance between environmental commitments and economic realities. As the world strives for a sustainable future, a re-evaluation of contributions, transparent examinations, and collective responsibility is imperative to bridge the gap and foster impactful climate action.

Reference:

• https://unfccc.int/topics/introduction-to-climate-finance
• https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/raising-ambition/climate-finance
• https://www.unicef.org/blog/climate-financing-fulfilling-obligations
• https://climatenexus.org/climate-change-news/common-but-differentiated-responsibilities-and-respective-capabilities-cbdr-rc
• https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/conferences/un-climate-change-conference-united-arab-emirates-nov/dec-2023/about-cop-28
• https://unfccc.int/conference/copenhagen-climate-change-conference-december-2009
• https://unfccc.int/topics/climate-finance/the-big-picture/climate-finance-in-the-negotiations
• https://static.pib.gov.in/WriteReadData/specificdocs/documents/2021/dec/doc202112101.pdf