U.N. Climate Finance Discussions Amid U.S. Election Uncertainty

By Valerie Volcovici and Kate Abnett

(Reuters) – Countries have a chance to use this week’s U.N. meetings in New York to resolve substantial differences over increasing the annual climate finance goal. However, uncertainty regarding the upcoming U.S. election may hinder progress ahead of the next U.N. climate summit in November.

Negotiators indicated that nations are hesitant to finalize their positions before knowing the outcome of the Nov. 5 U.S. presidential vote, which will significantly impact climate policy as the U.S. is the world’s largest economy and historical polluter for the next four years.

Delaying decisions until November could jeopardize finalizing a new agreement before the existing $100 billion financing pledge expires at the year’s end, critics warn.

The Elections Factor

“The elections are in the calculus” of global discussions, stated finance negotiator Michai Robertson of the Alliance of Small Island States.

Governments are contemplating various scenarios with respect to candidates like Vice President Kamala Harris, who has supported significant climate spending bills, or former President Donald Trump, who has a history of climate denial. A third scenario of an uncertain or delayed election outcome is also a concern.

Robertson pointed out that it’s an implicit understanding that the uncertainty surrounding the U.S. elections is influencing the positions of other countries. While some wealthy nations are willing to increase financial contributions, they prefer to wait until the U.S. election results are clear.

Tough Negotiations Ahead

This week’s U.N. General Assembly represents the last opportunity for countries to convene before COP29, which starts on Nov. 11 in Baku, Azerbaijan. Agreeing on a new financial target proves to be challenging; setting a target too high may result in failure to meet it, fuelling distrust among developing nations depending on these funds. Conversely, a target too low may leave vulnerable populations without necessary resources as global warming continues.

U.N. climate chief Simon Stiell has estimated annual financing needs to be in the trillions to support poorer countries in transitioning to clean energy sources and adapting to a warming climate.

Failing to establish a target ahead of 2025 may threaten future climate negotiations, according to a senior COP29 official.

Impact of the U.S. Political Landscape

Irrespective of the election outcome, accessibility for U.S. climate negotiators to make pledges this year is already constrained. A potential Harris presidency might offer continuity in climate policy, as she aligns with Biden’s positions, contributing $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund.

In contrast, Trump has pledged to withdraw from both the Paris Agreement and the overarching U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, further complicating the global climate dialogue.

Historical Context

The coincidence of U.S. elections and U.N. climate summits in November is not unprecedented. For instance, the contested 2000 U.S. election coincided with a climate summit that resulted in no agreements, leading to prolonged discussions. After the landmark Paris Agreement in 2015, U.S. negotiators were left reeling following Trump’s election the subsequent year.

Unlike in 2016, negotiators express a stronger resolve now, given the increasing urgency of climate action exacerbated by ongoing natural disasters triggered by rising global temperatures. Enhanced preparedness for unexpected election outcomes is underway, exemplified by coalition-building among U.S. states and cities to maintain a strong U.S. presence in climate dialogues.