Speakers have incessantly invoked the phrase “climate reparation” to explain the accountability to compensate future generations primarily based on previous harms. That displays a practice as outdated as World War I, when sure nations have been held liable for paying for the clean-up, explains Lisa Vanhala, a political scientist at University College London who research loss and harm negotiations. But rich polluters just like the US have remained fearful that it could possibly be leveraged to carry them accountable in venues exterior the United Nations, regardless of agreements at previous COPs to keep away from legal responsibility claims. Those nations wish to hold the dialog wanting ahead, away from a litany of previous harms, preferring to make use of the extra anodyne and open-ended phrase “loss and damage” on the negotiating desk. Worried about alienating the wealthy nations, nations advocating for finance have largely agreed to talk in these phrases—at the very least within the negotiating room. The UN requires consensus to maneuver ahead.

The query stays what the phrase “loss and damage” truly means. One concept, led by Germany forward of COP, is a form of insurance coverage program that may pay out when a climate-linked catastrophe strikes. The program, which the EU calls Global Shield, would possible contain assist from wealthier nations to cowl the premiums and would complement ongoing catastrophe reduction efforts. At COP, plenty of nations, together with Belgium and Ireland, have dedicated funding to this system.

But different nations need a fund for loss and harm throughout the UN. Among the fiercest advocates are among the small island nations that pioneered the thought of loss and harm, who say any insurance coverage can’t come on the expense of a grant-based program for affected nations. “As climate impacts become worse, some places will become uninsurable,” says Michai Robertson, who leads finance negotiations for AOSIS, a gaggle of small island states. Plus, he provides, insurance coverage is sweet at protecting sudden disasters however not slow-onset modifications like desertification and sea stage rise. The group’s member states have loads of concepts for the right way to finance a UN loss and harm fund, together with grants from polluters or different measures like taxing oil firm earnings.

By late Tuesday in Egypt, as world leaders departed, leaving negotiators with their marching orders, some appeared barely extra optimistic in regards to the creation of a fund. “Suffice to say that momentum is gathering,” mentioned Mottley of Barbados at a press convention Tuesday. There are challenges forward, together with indications that the United Kingdom could also be unwilling to offer funding and uncertainty over the US place because it emerges from midterm elections. Also unsure is the position of nations, like China and India, which might be main polluters now however haven’t contributed as a lot to the issue prior to now. On the sidelines of the talks, Gaston Browne, prime minister of Antigua and Barbuda, emphasised that everybody should step up. “The polluter must pay. I don’t think there’s a free pass for any country,” he mentioned.

In the meantime, extra motion is going down exterior the UN course of. At COP27, New Zealand and different polluters have arrange their very own loss and harm funds, becoming a member of a motion spearheaded final 12 months by Scotland, a non-UN member, which has pledged a complete of $7 million to loss and harm. That’s “very, very small” within the context of probably trillions in losses and damages, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon acknowledged at an occasion. Covering the immense prices, she mentioned, couldn’t be tackled solely via a “coalition of the willing” that resolve to take motion on their very own, highlighting the significance of discovering consensus within the COP negotiations.

She turned to Huq, her copanelist, thanking him for his years of labor on making that occur. He replied that he’s typically requested why he retains attending COP yearly, regardless of its constant shortcomings. His reply is relentless optimism. This 12 months, at the very least, they’ll be speaking cash, and that’s a begin. “We’ve been playing this game for years, and we’ve been losing,” he mentioned later, “but this time we got it.”