select search filters
roundups & rapid reactions
before the headlines
Fiona fox's blog

expert reaction to end of COP27

Beginning on Sunday 6th November, the COP27 climate talks in Sharm el-Sheikh have now been drawn to a close.


Dr Alison Ming, Researcher in Atmospheric Dynamics at the University of Cambridge, said: 

“The climate science insights reports compiled by leading scientists and presented at COP27 make it clear that endless adaptation to climate change is not possible. Science provides the evidence and data for climate change. Moreover, in recent years, our ability to attribute extreme events to human driven increases in carbon dioxide concentrations has improved significantly.” 

“The growing body of research shows that the consequences of climate change such as rising sea levels and extreme heat events are already affecting a large number of communities worldwide and will continue to do so unless we take drastic action. The latest UNEP Emissions Gap Report shows that policies currently in place put us on track for 2.8°C of warming by the end of the century.” 

“Science also gives us the tools and understanding to stop climate change. We need to move away from our reliance on fossil fuels. The numerous initiatives launched at COP27 show that countries are willing to work together on solutions. The more we delay decarbonisation, the more carbon dioxide we will add to our atmosphere and the worse the effects will be.”


Dr Miguel Ángel Morales Maqueda, Senior Lecturer in Oceanography at Newcastle University, said:

“Twenty seven conferences so far and counting. Yet, no one single, signed, global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by even the smallest amount. No comment.”


Prof Mark Maslin, Professor of Climatology, University College London (UCL), said:

So the lessons the multiple failures of COP27 for COP28 in Dubai are four fold: 1) start the negotiations now and work hard for the next 12 months so that all countries are prepared to get a clear agreement by the end, 2) run an open and transparent process so all countries understand what is being negotiated and trust can be repaired, 3) push key countries to increase their ambition and submit improved pledges so there is a chance of sticking to the 1.5˚C limit with a focus on phasing out fossil fuels and 4) rich nations including both high-income countries and emerging economies must contribute to adaptation funds and a transparent and an effective Loss and Damage Facility. Climate justice will need to be at the heart of the negotiations for COP28 as money will need to be put on the table for adaptation, loss and damages and rapid ramp up of renewables.


Prof Dave Reay, Executive Director of Edinburgh Climate Change Institute, University of Edinburgh

“The real loss and damage at COP27 has been to our chances of meeting the Paris climate goals for limiting warming in the 21st century. That the provision of ‘low emissions’ energy has slithered its way into the final agreement in Egypt means that even the limited progress on mitigation made at COP26 in Glasgow now risks being lost in a gassy miasma of new fossil fuel extraction and use.

“A fund to address ‘Loss and Damage’ may be the headline maker for COP27, but in reality this COP means the goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees C is all but lost, and the chances of keeping warming to 2 degrees C are badly damaged too.”


Prof Michael Meredith, Science Leader, British Antarctic Survey

“Unfortunately this pushes us further into ‘too little, too late’ territory. The deal to provide funding for developing countries is fair and just, but the lack of progress in tackling the causes of climate change – greenhouse gas emissions – means that we’re no closer to solving the problem, and in some areas the commitments seem watered down. The future for all countries is grim unless that changes urgently”.


Dr Ed Atkins, Senior Lecturer, Cabot Institute for the Environment, University of Bristol 

“Claims for loss and damage were a litmus test for success in Sharm El-Sheikh and this last-minute deal represents a significant breakthrough in global climate action. But this agreement isn’t an achievement on its own. Whilst there is now a loss and damage fund, it needs money and commitment to work. The real test is what richer countries do next. 

“More than 600 lobbyists of fossil fuel companies were at COP27. Taken together, they were the second largest delegation and you can see their fingerprints. There are still no clear commitments on phasing out fossil fuels. 

“Despite some successes, like the loss and damage fund, COP27 will be remembered as where oil and gas interests have been protected in the face of climate breakdown. The longer this goes on, the less chance we have of meeting any meaningful global targets.”


Prof Daniela Schmidt, Cabot Institute and School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, said:

“The recent months have shown us the impacts climate change is having right now with millions of people displaced by floods, crop and loss of life due to heat and drought. The clear urgency which these events created regrettably has not translated into action at the COP27. Does it take 8 million people in a rich oil-producing country to be displaced for fossil fuel production to be phased out now?

“Our current emission trajectories commit us to further warming and higher risks. They ignore the real threat this warming is already causing, and will pose, for people and nature on this planet. Adaptation does not limit the urgency of mitigation; it only acknowledges that climate change is here now.

“The commitment at COP27 now acknowledges that the vulnerability to climate change for 3 billion people is a threat to their life and livelihoods. It acknowledges that people experience existential loss and damage. Will it translate into funding to ensure people everywhere in the world will get the help they will need not to die of heat, floods and hunger?  I hope my scepticism is unwarranted.”


Dr Bethan Davies, Senior Lecturer in the School of Geography, Politics and Sociology, Newcastle University, said:

“COP27 has been a disappointment. it does not go far enough to meet the Paris Agreement and makes no progress on further limiting warming to less than 1.5C. It reaffirms the Paris Agreement to “hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2C above pre-industrial levels’ and only pursues efforts to limit the increase to below 1.5C. 

“As the agreement notes, limiting global warming to 1.5C requires rapid, deep and sustained reductions in global greenhouse emissions of 43% by 2030 relative to the 2019 level, but makes no progress in doing so. However the nationally determined contributions are only 0.3% below the 2019 level and are in no way aligned with this goal. In fact we are on target for 2.2-2.9C of warming by 2100 AD, with the 2030 commitments having a mean of 2.4C. 

“This is catastrophic for the worlds glaciers and ice sheets, for the worlds mountain glaciers. This warming would destroy around half of the global mountain glacier volume. Mountain glaciers are a critical water resource for millions of people who live in high mountain areas, and especially in the Andes and the Himalaya. Without glaciers acting as a reservoir and a buffer, streamflow in the dry season will be severely decreased, driving water shortages.

“For the ice sheets, a warming of this magnitude commits us to a significant sea level rise. This is likely to be irreversible. Globally, mean sea level will likely rise by more than half a meter under this climate scenario by 2100, displacing millions of people and causing widespread coastal flooding.

“Every tenth of a degree matters. Fighting to keep the 1.5C goal alive is critical, and this requires deep and sustained cuts in emissions. However, we should not give up; if 1.5C is unattainable we should strive to limit warming to 1.6C, not 2C. Every tenth of a degree of global heating contributes to the destruction of our cryosphere with long lasting and global impacts.”


The below quotes were issued before the final deal was struck:

Prof Emily Shuckburgh, Director of Cambridge Zero, said:

“As severe flood warnings are once again being issued across the UK due to heavy rainfall, and as devastating floods in Pakistan have left 10 million children in need of immediate lifesaving support, the need for urgent climate action has never been clearer. Unless we put a drastic brake on greenhouse gas emissions, the human and economic impacts of climate change will inexorably rise, taking an especially large toll on the world’s poorest societies.”

“We have to do better. And this COP showed that most of the world’s governments want to. With the economics of clean energy advancing year-by-year and the impacts of dirty energy becoming clearer and clearer, those governments that aren’t yet on board are undeniably failing their populations. Science shows there is no time to lose in peaking and lowering global emissions, energy trends show that’s in reach, and solutions across all sectors of the global economy are poised to be deployed. It will take radical collaborations between academia, business, finance, governments and civil society, but it can be done – so let’s just do it.”


Prof Diane Coyle, Bennett Professor of Public Policy at the University of Cambridge:

“The discussions ended up focusing, as they often do, on who will pay for damage and transition costs. Although the desire for natural justice is understandable, it’s important for low income countries to appreciate that there will be big savings from switching to renewable energy now the costs of these technologies have fallen so much. And investment in clean generation projects can attract private finance. There is no need to halt progress on future transition because of the disagreement over who should pay the bill for the past.”


Prof Piers Forster, Director of the Priestley International Centre for Climate at the University of Leeds, said:

“It is all too easy to write COP27 off as a confused failure.  But weaning the world off the heroin of fossil fuels was never going to be a cakewalk. The harrowing evidence of loss and damage presented at COP27 shows that continued fossil fuel use has become too expensive for the world to bear.  In the negotiations, it was clear that countries want to quit the habit even though they are still squabbling over who pays the rehab bill.”


Prof Daniela Schmidt, Cabot Institute and School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, said:

“The recent months have shown us the impacts climate change is having now with millions of people displaced by floods, crop and loss of life due to heat and drought, and fires in many parts of the world. The sense of urgency which these events created regrettably have not translated into action at the COP27.

“Our current emission trajectories commit us to further warming and higher risks. They ignore the real threat this warming is already causing and will pose for people and nature on this planet.  Even if, or when, we overshoot 1.5C global warming, which is pausing big adaptation challenges for many countries, we need to work hard to limit warming. Adaptation does not limit the urgency of mitigation; it only acknowledges that climate change is here now.

“It is time now to put the legal and financial means in place to transition our cities, our food production, our transport systems to a low emission future. Funding for adaptation needs to be provided for all parts of the world. Losses and damages from climate change grow around the world, but Loss and Damage, the legal acknowledgement  of responsibility, still has not happened at COP.”


Prof Guy Howard, Director of the University of Bristol Cabot Institute for the Environment and Research Chair of Environmental and Infrastructure Resilience, said:

“One thing we learned from the COVID pandemic is the more joined up science and policy thinking is, the better and quicker the outcomes. Policy on climate needs to rapidly catch up with the science. The time for policy fudges and nudges has gone; we now need serious responses to the crisis we face.”


Prof Jon Gibbins, Professor of Power Plant Engineering and Carbon Capture at the University of Sheffield, said:

“The COP27 communique should extend what was said about coal at COP26 to all fossil fuels. For example, instead of ‘accelerating efforts towards the phasedown of unabated coal power’, say ‘accelerating efforts towards the phasedown of unabated fossil fuel use’. Or better, to avoid the unclear meaning of ‘unabated’, state: ‘accelerating efforts towards the phasedown of all fossil fuel use that does not involve the capture, directly at the point of use or from the atmosphere, and permanent geological storage of an amount of CO2 equivalent to the associated CO2 and other GHG emissions’.

“This is obviously a necessary condition for achieving net zero GHG emissions and it is hard to see how any countries could argue with this – unless they are proposing neither to use nor to supply any fossil fuels at all by the time net zero is achieved.”


Dr Nadine Johnston, Marine Ecologist, Ecosystems Team, British Antarctic Survey, said:

“At COP26, nature took centre stage for the first time and the ocean community united as one voice in the ‘Ocean for Climate’ Declaration which was endorsed by more than 100 civil society organisations.

“COP27 must now deliver concrete actions to support this Declaration: it is imperative that we achieve the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement, to protect the ocean, its ecosystems, species, and resources because ocean action is climate action.

“Southern Ocean ecosystems are globally important and integral to a healthy planet and healthy economies. They cycle nutrients and carbon, regulate our climate, and support biodiversity, fisheries and wildlife tourism, connecting ocean ecosystems and economies far remote from this region. Crucially, these ecosystems are at risk, particularly from rising ocean temperatures and sea ice loss, if we do not keep global warming below two degrees. Protecting these ocean ecosystems is therefore a global task. Keeping the 1.5°C temperature target is vital to safeguarding these vulnerable ecosystems now and into the future, avoiding irreversible deterioration and associated loss of the benefits they provide us.”


Dr Elena Cantarello, Principal Academic in Sustainability Science, Bournemouth University, said:

Is 1.5C still a credible goal? Should we be facing up to the reality we will overshoot and reflect that in the language?

“There has been a lot at COP27 on whether countries are backsliding on 1.5C. The current text proposed at COP27 is not a clear commitment to 1.5C. Words are still ambitious but the same timid language we got in 2015 in Paris was used. Ultimately it boils down on whether we accept that this is a global emergency. If the language is not strong we can just carry on. If it is strong we change the way we live. Just because scientists say that 1.5C is not a credible goal under business as usual, the language should not change but it should be reiterated the importance of 1.5C. This should not be used as a narrative not to mobilise. 1.5C should be a limit not a target. Breaching 1.5C limit would condemn millions of people to extreme suffering and trigger climate tipping points.”

Did COP27 do any good? What were the key decisions?

“Like with any other COPs more could have been done. However, there was progress on several fronts. Loss and damage was for the first time put on the agenda  and there was appreciation of the moral case that climate change has been largely caused by industrialised countries but worst impacts are felt by those who have contributed the least to the problem. It is only right that industrialised countries should help cover the cost of things that are irreparably lost. Some loss and damage commitments were made (e.g. Santiago network, Global Shield) but industrialised countries have been cautious. They could be signing a blank cheque as it is impossible to foresee how much is loss and damage going to represent. We might know more over the weekend.”

What news on biodiversity, fossil fuels, finance, nature – how successful have the talks been in terms of each?

“Country specific packages have been drawn at COP27 and G20 happening at the same time.  The so called ‘just energy transition partnership’ process to do big deals for countries like Indonesia is very exciting. However, as COP27 is closing it looks like they are still going to decide on ‘phasing down’ of fossil fuels and not ‘phasing out’ in line with the scientific evidence. Also it was exciting to see President Biden meeting Chinese leader Xi Jinping and announcing that USA and China are willing to restart joint efforts to tackle climate change. USA and China are the two biggest emitters of GHGs emissions so the announcement is good news.

“A new commitment came out of COP26 to end deforestation in Glasgow which was accepted by scepticism. But a lot of work has gone under the scene which has led to multiple political forums at COP27 under the title of the Forest and Climate Leaders’ Partnership and it now looks like it has the right infrastructure to implement the commitment made in Glasgow and to ensure that this is a turning point for deforestation.”

Are global policies in step with the science at all?

“Global policies are still lagging behind what the science says governments should do. In the run up to COP27 many reports have been published such as the Emission Gap Report saying that policies currently in place point to a 2.8C temperature rise by the end of the century. Current pledges implementation will only reduce this to a 2.4-2.6C temperature rise. Not many countries have submitted new Nationally Determined Contributions since COP26. Recent IPCC reports highlight the fact that time is running out to turn things around.”

What climate trajectory is looking most likely now, compared with how you felt after Paris/Glasgow?  What does that mean in terms of impacts on the planet/people?

“Having attended COP26 as an observer I feel frustrated that COP27 news have not made the headlines the same way COP26 did. The climate trajectory adopted by governments to limit temperature to 1.5C is not looking much better than the one seen after Paris/Glasgow (GHGs emissions have still been rising overall). This means that we will experience more extreme events like extreme temperatures, bigger floods, longer and deeper drought, more and bigger fires. Low-lying island countries are going to disappear because of rising sea levels. All this will create more disruptions in the food and water supply with health consequences as well. However, the good news is that demand destruction for fossil fuels is going to stay and it looks like it’s going to be accelerated. So I am hopeful that eventually governments will get the message especially in the run up of COP28 where the third and final step of the first Global Stocktake will take place.”


Dr Chris Huntingford, a climate modeller at the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, said:

“Much of COP27 has focussed on creating a damage fund to support developing nations who have gained less from burning fossil fuels. Any payments will likely need two channels. The first to build resilience in anticipation of future climate extremes. The second is aid after any disruptive extreme weather event, where climate science verifies the chances of it happening have increased due to higher atmospheric greenhouse gases.”


Dr Steve Smith, Executive Director of Oxford Net Zero and CO2RE, said:

“The latest numbers show we may have flatlined global emissions in the last few years, but we haven’t reduced them. And that is the main problem. However, carbon removal has a role to play too. It has emerged in the negotiations around fairness with the draft text calling on developed nations to go net-negative by 2030. What we see less of in the negotiations is how we can deliver carbon removal effectively and in a cost-effective way.

“It was encouraging to see a proliferation of net zero pledges in the lead up to COP26. The discussion is now turning to: how credible are these pledges, and will they deliver?

“We’re not in a position to be picky about which technologies we pursue. We need to pursue everything on the table as quickly as possible if we’re serious about achieving the Paris Agreement goals. We should focus on the ones that have potential to scale, potential to come down in costs, and multiple other benefits, for example for air quality and biodiversity.

“In the next 12 months we need to see actions, actions, actions, not just announcements. As well as ramping up clean energy, we need to be pulling away from fossil fuels. We have already built enough fossil infrastructure to blow past the 1.5C limit, so we need to retire projects early, or link them with carbon capture and storage (CCS) where possible.”


Prof Kevin Anderson, Professor of Energy & Climate Change at the Tyndall Centre, University of Manchester, said:

“A year on from the Glasgow COP26, a further 40 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide has been spewed into the atmosphere, the post-Covid skies are again streaked with aircraft vapour trails and the oil and gas majors are enthusiastically drilling to hell & back, thanks to new licenses issued by so-called climate-progressive governments. Set against this, another miserable façade of climate concern grinds to its ‘Groundhog’ end in the holiday resort of Sharm el-Sheikh.

“Ministers, diplomats and academics preferring PR over analysis will feed jaded journalists the ever-present tale of challenges to overcome, but how steady progress is being made – particularly on future technologies. Yet all this will pass by the Keeling Curve – where atmospheric concentrations of CO2 continue their inexorable rise unperturbed by the lies, offsets, pledges & financial scams of the hi-emitters attending COP27. A third of a century from the first IPCC report, flying pigs, pink elephants and other speculative future tech barely raise an eyebrow, but daring to suggest fossil fuels may perhaps have something to do with the climate crisis remains contentious, if not blasphemous. This tells us so much about the COP process!

“All this perhaps sounds too flippant, but I really don’t think it is. Offering superficially measured accounts of ‘this minor success’, ‘that improvement in wording’ or of a ‘few financial crumbs begrudgingly thrown at poorer nations’ only feeds into the business-as-usual circus that annual COP cycles have become. Reasoned careful analysis and honest brokering are prerequisites of successful outcomes, but they are far from sufficient. As it is, they risk legitimising what is an increasingly corrupt and immoral process. As we burn through the carbon budget for a 50% chance of not exceeding 1.5°C, at 1% every month, perhaps those genuinely concerned about climate change need to shout loud and long for an alternative structure for COP28. The venue (Dubai) does not bode well for any such change, and no doubt many academic colleagues, along with Global North NGOs, already have their flights and hotels booked! But for those less enamoured by fleeting glances of the great & good and the allure of paid jollies with mates – the time to organise for a Paris-compliant outcome from November 2023 is now.”


Prof Richard Betts, from the University of Exeter and the Met Office, said:

“Personally speaking, I would be astounded if international action was ramped up fast enough to avoid 1.5C global warming being exceeded within the next decade or two. So it’s now about damage limitation. We should all still work much harder to reduce emissions urgently to keep further heating of the planet as low as possible, whilst also urgently adapting to the changes we’ve already caused. Limiting the damage long-term may also require actually removing excess carbon from the atmosphere, but the feasibility and wider implications of this remain to be seen.”


Dr James Dyke, from Exeter’s Global Systems Institute, said:

“I struggle to understand how anyone can continue to argue that 1.5 is still alive.

“I certainly don’t believe any politicians involved in COP27 have any intentions of implementing the transformative policies that 1.5 now demands.

“We are now entering a much warmer and more dangerous world.

“Loss and damages will increase, along with more human suffering and more destruction of the natural world. There is no way to spin this other than a colossal failure.

“One thing that can be salvaged from this situation is that we now have an opportunity to learn from this failure.

“If the UNFCCC cannot produce transformative change, then we must urgently organise and generate effective action using other means.

“We can’t take back the emissions we have poured into the atmosphere, but there is still a future that we can choose for ourselves.”


Prof Dann Mitchell, Met Office chair in Climate Hazards, University of Bristol, said:

“It cannot be overemphasized how critical the next one to two years are. If, on that timescale, our greenhouse gas emissions do not peak and start to decrease, we will not limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. On top of that, we need to be halving our emissions by 2030. At the moment, it is still technically and financially achievable, but my feeling is the next COP might be our last chance to do this. Beyond that, we must realistically start talking about limiting global warming to the upper Paris target of 2C. We know that climate caused impacts are significantly more detrimental at that level, and even more so for every tenth of a degree warming thereafter.

“As expected, much of the discussion at COP27 has focussed around the $100 billion dollars per year pledged at the Paris COP. The make-up of this fund is extremely complex, and can be interpreted in a number of ways, so naturally different countries interpret it in the way most beneficial to them. Without that funding, there is far less incentive for many of the developing countries to stop using fossil fuels, which they see, understandably, as the most economical way for them to develop.”


Prof Pierre Friedlingstein, Chair in Mathematical Modelling of Climate Systems at the University of Exeter, said:

“Keeping global warming below 1.5C is getting harder and harder. It has been 7 years since all countries signed the Paris Agreement, and yet 2022 saw a rise, not a decline, of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning.

“The remaining carbon budget to keep warming below 1.5C is now equivalent to less than 10 years of current annual emissions.  The only option left is probably a significant overshoot followed by massive carbon dioxide removal at unprecedented scale…”


Dr Andy Wiltshire, Met Office Head of Earth System and Mitigation Science, said:

“To give the 1.5°C threshold at least a 50% chance of being met without continued exceedance we need to see annual emissions down to around 30 gigatonnes by 2030. Implementing all the pledges from Glasgow would bring annual global emissions of carbon-dioxide or their equivalents down to between 45 and 49 gigatonnes by 2030. But at this level there are no future pathways likely to avoid going above 1.5°C.”

“If 1.5°C is exceeded over a sustained period, of say several decades, then this is known as overshoot. The downside of not staying below 1.5°C altogether is a greater risk this century of more severe climate impacts, such as those triggered by increased melting of icecaps or collapse of an ecosystem like the Amazon rainforest.”


Dr Camilla Mathison, Mitigations Science Manager at the Met Office, said:

“If we overshoot 1.5°C, it doesn’t have to be permanent. With deep and rapid reductions post 2030, and development of diverse technologies for the removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide it remains feasible to meet 1.5°C by the end of the century.”


Prof Ed Hawkins, Professor of Climate Science at the University of Reading, said:

“We will all regret not acting sooner and faster on reducing emissions. We are already feeling the consequences of previous delays through more extreme weather events, and future generations will not understand why we did not act earlier to limit the consequences.”


Dr Sugandha Srivastav, Postdoctoral Researcher in Environmental Economics, Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford, said: 

“We can and must have credible mechanisms for directing finance form the global north to the global south. There is a growing trend towards financing coal plant closures to make way for cheaper and cleaner energy alternatives. 

“I think we will see the ramping up of unilateral domestic action on air pollution, and an increasing awareness of the potential of clean energy to both reduce electricity bills and improve air quality, all whilst reducing CO2. 

“Even though we have international negotiations every year, our focus should be on what we do in the space between these. We must reinvigorate and energise climate-conscious citizen groups and green businesses. 

“We should focus on the narrative of co-benefits and win-wins – there’s not enough of that. Oxford research has shown that the clean energy transition can save trillions by 2050. Households around the world are already reducing electricity bills thanks to cheap solar power”


Dr Stephanie Hirmer, Senior Researcher in Climate Compatible Growth at the University of Oxford, said:

“It is hard to miss the emotionally-charged state of those impacted by the consequences of climate change at COP27.  The few protestors that are brave – those that do not shy away from the difficult conversations that should happen – actually represent the voices of the many, despite their limited numbers.

“While everyone knows the 1.5C target is off the table, it is not openly discussed in official sessions. And while successes here are few, at least Loss and Damage has officially been discussed for the first time, with $1 billion pledged by the EU.

“Additionally, this is the first COP where biodiversity and nature were a fundamental part of the climate discussions—we are finally collectively acknowledging that without the absorptive capacity of nature, climate targets would have been surpassed long ago.

“This COP was branded as the ‘implementation COP’ following on from COP26 as the ‘COP of the pledges’; however, nothing has been implemented, and it has thus failed to achieve what it set out to do.  What I hope for COP28 is that the difficult questions are more at the forefront of discussion, and not relegated to a few brave protestors.’


Dr Linda Speight, a hydrometeorologist at the University of Oxford, said: 

“As the climate changes and urban populations grow, the number of people around the world at risk of flooding is increasing.  We must prepare for tomorrow’s climate today by investing in early warning and disaster management tools that support increased climate resilience.”


Dr Laurie Parsons, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Geography at Royal Holloway, University of London, said:

“As we reach the end of COP 27, it has arguably lived up to the expected disappointment, with little shift of direction from major emitters.

“On the mitigation side, we remain so far off course for the 1.5C target that it’s difficult to see how it remains plausible. The one bright spot was a renewed seriousness around loss and damage, with hundreds of millions committed via various schemes, including major contributions from Germany and the EU.

“Even on this front, though, major concerns remain. The total funding required for adaptation is at least $2.5 trillion by 2030, so we are still orders of magnitude out. Compounding this, the mechanisms for delivering promised funds, dominated by the World Bank’s Global Shield program, have been widely critiqued as over-reliant on loans, too slow in delivery, and lacking any mechanism for chasing promised funds.

“So, overall, very little done and a great deal more to do.”




Declared interests

None to declare.

in this section

filter RoundUps by year

search by tag