US Election Uncertainty Hinders Progress on UN Climate Finance, Reports Reuters

Countries Seek Resolution on Climate Finance Amid U.S. Election Uncertainty

By Valerie Volcovici and Kate Abnett

Countries are poised to leverage this week’s U.N. meetings in New York to address significant differences regarding the enhancement of global climate finance goals. However, the uncertainty surrounding the upcoming U.S. presidential election could hinder progress ahead of the forthcoming U.N. climate summit in November.

Negotiators have indicated that nations are hesitant to finalize their positions until the results of the Nov. 5 election—when one of the world’s largest economies and most significant historical polluters will determine its climate policy for the next four years—are known.

Delaying decisions until after the election could undermine the opportunity to establish a new climate financing framework before the existing $100 billion annual pledge expires at the end of this year, according to negotiators and experts.

"The elections are a key factor in global climate discussions," observed Michai Robertson, a finance negotiator representing the Alliance of Small Island States.

Countries are considering various scenarios based on potential outcomes: a Harris presidency, which may continue the current administration’s climate commitments, or a return of former President Trump, known for his climate skepticism and focus on fossil fuel expansion. There is also the possibility of prolonged uncertainty arising from a delayed election outcome.

"It’s an unspoken understanding that the uncertainty surrounding the U.S. election is influencing the positions countries are taking," Robertson noted. While some wealthier nations have indicated a willingness to contribute additional funding, there is reluctance to specify amounts pending clarity on the U.S. direction.

The U.N. General Assembly this week is the final opportunity for nations to convene before the COP29 climate summit, set to take place on Nov. 11 in Baku, Azerbaijan, shortly after the U.S. election.

However, reaching consensus on a new target for climate financing and potentially broadening the donor base is proving challenging. An overly ambitious target risks countries falling short, which could lead to strains and distrust among developing nations reliant on such financing. Conversely, a target too modest would leave many vulnerable as the impacts of climate change continue to intensify. According to Simon Stiell, chief of the U.N. climate agency, the annual financing needs for supporting poorer nations in transitioning to clean energy and adapting to a warmer climate could reach trillions.

Failing to establish a new target before 2025 could threaten future climate negotiations, as indicated by a senior Azerbaijani official involved with the COP29 presidency. The country is resolute in avoiding any outcome that could be perceived as failure.

Regardless of the election outcome, U.S. climate negotiators face limitations in their financial pledges; a Harris administration would likely maintain a sense of continuity. Jonathan Pershing, a former U.S. delegate, highlighted that current negotiators operate under the prevailing administration rather than one that may emerge in the future.

While the Biden administration has not proposed a new finance target, U.S. negotiators have emphasized the importance of contributions from rapidly growing economies like China and Gulf oil-producing nations. Historically, these nations have contended that they should be exempt from such obligations as developing countries.

Conversely, Trump has expressed intentions to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and the overarching U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which governs global climate efforts involving its 198 member states.

The timing of U.S. elections and U.N. climate summits in November is not without precedent. The contentious 2000 election coincided with a climate summit that failed to produce an agreement, necessitating a special session five months later. Similarly, U.S. negotiators were caught off guard at the U.N. summit in Marrakesh following Trump’s election, which overshadowed agreements made during the historic Paris summit just a year prior.

This year, however, negotiators are feeling heightened urgency due to the escalating occurrences of climate disasters and extremes linked to rising global temperatures.

From a forward-looking perspective, climate negotiators are better equipped to handle unexpected developments. Paul Bodnar, director of sustainable finance at the Bezos Earth Fund, noted the differences in preparedness compared to 2016, when the outcome of the election was unforeseen.

In the wake of the Trump administration’s retreat from global climate initiatives, Bodnar collaborated with states and cities in the U.S. that committed to maintaining strong participation in international climate dialogues.