“Analysis: US Election Uncertainty Hinders Progress on UN Climate Finance” By Reuters

By Valerie Volcovici and Kate Abnett

Countries are poised to use the upcoming U.N. meetings in New York to address significant differences regarding the increase of global climate finance goals. However, uncertainty surrounding the U.S. election may hinder progress before the next U.N. climate summit in November.

Negotiators have indicated a hesitance among countries to assert their positions until the results of the U.S. presidential election on November 5 are known. The outcome will determine climate policy for the world’s largest economy and leading polluter over the next four years.

Prolonging decision-making until after the election could jeopardize efforts to forge a new agreement before the expiration of the current $100 billion financing pledge at the end of this year, according to various negotiators and observers.

"The elections are part of the calculations" during global climate discussions, noted Michai Robertson, a finance negotiator from the Alliance of Small Island States.

The negotiations are factoring in potential scenarios, including a win by Vice President Kamala Harris, who has supported major domestic climate investment, or a second term for former President Donald Trump, known for promoting fossil fuels and denying climate change. A scenario where the election outcome is unclear for months is also a consideration.

"It is an unspoken understanding that uncertainty regarding the U.S. elections is influencing how countries are positioning themselves," Robertson remarked. While some wealthier nations have expressed intent to contribute additional funds, they are waiting to gauge the direction the U.S. may take.

The upcoming U.N. General Assembly marks the final gathering of countries before the COP29 climate summit begins on November 11 in Baku, Azerbaijan, just days after the U.S. election.

Reaching agreement on a new finance target, as well as expanding the donor base, is challenging. Setting the target too high risks failing to meet it, likely leading to tensions and eroded trust among developing nations reliant on these funds. Conversely, a target deemed too low would result in inadequate support for vulnerable populations as climate change continues to intensify. U.N. climate chief Simon Stiell has projected that annual financing needs could reach trillions to support poorer countries in transitioning to clean energy and adapting to a warmer climate.

Failing to establish a new target before 2025 could jeopardize future climate negotiations, as emphasized by a senior official from Azerbaijan’s COP29 presidency, who underscored the importance of avoiding failure.

Regardless of the election outcome, this year’s U.S. climate negotiators face limitations in what they can promise, though a Harris presidency would ensure greater continuity. Jonathan Pershing, a former U.S. delegate, pointed out that negotiators work for the current administration rather than a prospective one.

During her candidacy, Harris has affirmed her commitment to President Biden’s climate negotiating stances, which include a pledge made at last year’s COP28 to contribute $3 billion to the global Green Climate Fund.

Neither Biden nor Harris has announced a new financing target, but U.S. negotiators have indicated that rapidly growing economies, like China and oil-producing Gulf states, should also offer contributions. Historically, China and some Gulf nations have claimed exemption as developing countries.

Trump has reiterated his intention to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and the overarching U.N. climate convention that facilitates global climate negotiations involving 198 member states. Only a few countries, including Iran, Libya, and Yemen, have distanced themselves from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

The overlap of U.S. elections and U.N. climate summits in November is not unprecedented. The contentious 2004 U.S. election coincided with a climate summit that produced no agreements, leading to a special session held months later in Bonn, Germany. A subsequent major disruption occurred post-Paris Agreement, when U.S. negotiators were taken aback by Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016.

"This year is distinct," negotiators noted, highlighting the urgency surrounding climate action as global temperatures have already begun to trigger unforeseen disasters and extreme weather events.

Adapting to potential unexpected outcomes is now a priority for climate negotiators, remarked Paul Bodnar, director of sustainable finance at a major environmental fund, recalling his previous experience as a U.S. negotiator. "Unlike in 2016, we were caught off guard then. After the U.S. retreated from global climate initiatives, we formed alliances among states and cities to maintain a strong U.S. presence in international climate discussions."