If you thought that climate change was all the fault of 'developed' countries, think again! That's NOT what data on GHG emissions since 1850 actually suggests. Old distinctions between developed and developing countries are no longer fit for purpose. Time to move on. www.cgdev.org/blog/emissio...

Really striking that SIDS get so much more adaptation finance per head than LDCs (indeed, than anyone), yet overall are less vulnerable. More adaptation needs to be focused on LDCs, with different help for SIDS. But SIDS may have much stronger claim on loss and damage finance.

Indeed. Our own work on 'fair shares' very relevant here. Old divisions between 'developed' and 'developing' make no sense any more www.cgdev.org/publication/...

This is MASSIVE!

Climate finance debates often focus on who pays & how much, but @jonathanbeynon.bsky.social & @ianmitchell1.bsky.social argue that quality matters too. They explore how the UK reports the results of its int'l climate finance, & what it reveals about effectiveness 👇 https://buff.ly/416hM9q

The scale of income and especially wealth inequality is literally stratospheric. Things look challenging, but now is not the time to give up trying to agree and implement a minimum tax on the world’s richest. www.cgdev.org/blog/pens-pa...

Now that governments at #COP29 agreed the #NCQG, which sets out future goals for international climate finance, the focus turns to how they will be delivered. Here are my thoughts, featuring more MS Paint graphics that I know @ed-king.bsky.social loves so much: www.nrdc.org/bio/joe-thwa...

🚨New paper! 🚨(well, to Bluesky) Making Migration Work for Adaptation: Classifying Remittances as Climate Finance An exciting paper that we hope might make a difference (esp. after NCQG). Huge thanks to co-author @jonathanbeynon.bsky.social & to all who reviewed/shared comments. Thread below! 1/

Obsessing over quantity and forgetting quality of climate finance is the Baku COP’s biggest failure. Not that $300bn is too low to meet demands for action and justice (though that’s true). It’s that the world’s poorest & least responsible for climate change will be robbed by it.

Indeed. It’s insufficient, ill-defined, with no public finance target, no grant equivalent figure, and no refs to additionality or burden sharing. So much for learning lessons of the $100bn goal!

Just reinforces point that $250bn by 2035 is unambitious and woefully inadequate

Re #NCQG. Disappointing. No refs to new and additional. No refs to grant equivalence. Refs to additional contributions from developing countries are important (their emissions are now >50% of all GHG emissions since 1850). But developed countries simply must commit more.

Farewell X, ELO Mr Blue Sky!