-
No, the something we're discussing is a pile of money - the NCQG - which is intended to underwrite renewable transition projects, subsidize the closure of coal plants and/or protect carbon sinks like forests, and pay for mitigation and adaptation (ie, flood defences).
If the countries that are going to find themselves underwater don't think they can afford the necessary flood defences, why shouldn't they complain? Why shouldn't they walk out, or negotiate however they choose?
Yes, it could be the case that some leaders are padding their costs to skim some off. It could also be the developed world are low-balling them.
I don't know, and I doubt @Ben689908 does either. Half a flood defence is not, in many cases, any better than no flood defence.
You are reading a single comment by @useless and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
useless
The something could be a planet with a functional ecosystem.?
Would for example the Pacific island leaders be better off negotiating for an extra $100m or getting a global agreement in place that stops ocean rise and means the islands continue to exist?