Lidy Nacpil

This is from 2017, but still worth reading: "A Brief History of the US and the UN Climate Negotiations." The timeline graphic is a bit confusing, just skip down to the text. And never, ever, neverfuckingever, use the phrase "US climate leadership" again. worldat1c.org/a-brief-histor…

The US likes to claim "climate leadership" but its history is one of bullying the world into weaker and weaker agreements that the US then doesn't respect anyway. That dynamic is fully at play at #TC5. It is unsurprising, entirely predictable, and still absolutely unacceptable.

And now the pinnacle, the current #TC5 text: "The Fund may receive contributions from a wide variety of sources of funding, including grants and concessional loans from public, private and innovative sources, as appropriate." This would be laughable if it weren't so enraging.

The Glasgow pact severely watered this down: "Urges developed country Parties, the operating entities of the Financial Mechanism, UN entities...and other... institutions, including NGOs and private sources, to provide enhanced and additional support for activities addressing L&D"

On finance, the #UNFCCC text has very clear language: "The developed country Parties... shall provide new and additional financial resources." This was largely maintained in the Paris Agreement with a clause that "Other Parties are encouraged" to provide finance voluntarily.

For decades the US has systematically weakened the global climate regime. #UNFCCC mitigation responsibilities went from "commitments" to "actions" to "contributions," an increasing level of voluntarism that suited the U.S. but is leading to catastrophic climate outcomes.

The current #TC5 text, in which the countries that have caused the climate crisis have no particular obligation to pay into the L&D Fund, is a logical extension of the history of US engagement at the #UNFCCC, which has always been about escaping responsibility over all else. 🧵👇