UN climate talks to focus on money to help poor nations cut carbon pollution

BAKU, Azerbaijan (AP) — A complex international two-week-long game of climate change poker is convening. The stakes? Just the fate of an ever-warming world.

Curbing and coping with climate change's worsening heat, floods, droughts and storms will cost trillions of dollars and poor nations just don't have it, numerous reports and experts calculate. As United Nations climate negotiations started Monday in Baku, Azerbaijan, the chief issue is who must ante up to help poor nations and especially how much.

The numbers are enormous. The floor in negotiations is the $100 billion a year that poor nations — based on a categorization made in the 1990s — now get as part of a 2009 agreement that was barely met. Several experts and poorer nations say the need is $1 trillion a year or more.

“It's a game with high stakes,” said Climate Analytics CEO Bill Hare, a physicist. “Right now the fate of the planet depends very much on what we're able to pull off in the next five or 10 years.”

But this year's talks, known as COP29, won't be as high-profile as last year's, with 48 fewer heads of state scheduled to speak. The leaders of the top two carbon polluting countries — China and the United States — will be absent. But if money negotiations fail in Baku, it will handicap 2025’s make-or-break climate negotiations, experts say.

Not only is dealing with money always a touchy subject, but two of the rich countries that are expected to donate money to poor nations — the United States and Germany — are in the midst of dramatic government changes. Even though the United States delegation will be from Biden Administration, the reelection of Donald Trump, who downplays climate change and dislikes foreign aid, makes U.S. pledges unlikely to be fulfilled.

The overarching issue is climate finance. Without it, experts say the world can't get a handle on fighting warming, nor can most of the nations achieve their current carbon pollution-cutting goals or the new ones they will submit next year.

“If we don't solve the finance problem, then definitely we will not solve the climate problem,” said former Colombian deputy climate minister Pablo Vieira, who heads the support unit at NDC Partnership, which helps nations with emissions-cutting goals.

Nations can't cut carbon pollution if they can't afford to eliminate coal, oil and gas, Vieira and several other experts said. Poor nations are frustrated that they are being told to do more to fight climate change when they cannot afford it, he said. And the 47 poorest nations only created 4% of the heat-trapping gases in the air, according to the U.N.

About 77% of the heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere now comes from the G20 rich nations, many of whom are now cutting back on their pollution, something that is not happening in most poor nations or China.

“The countries that are rich today have become rich by polluting the Earth,” said Ani Dasgupta, president of World Resources Institute.

The money being discussed is for three things: Helping poor nations switch from dirty fossil fuels to clean energy; helping them adapt to the impacts of a warming world such as sea level rise and worsening storms; and compensating vulnerable poor nations for climate change damage.

“Should the global community fail to reach a (finance) goal, this is really just signing the death warrant of many developing countries," said Chukwumerije Okereke, director of the Center for Climate Change and Development in Nigeria.

Michael Wilkins, a business professor who heads Imperial College's Centre for Climate Finance and Investment in the U.K., said since 2022 total climate finance has been nearly $1.5 trillion. But only 3% of that is actually geared toward the least developed countries, he said.

“The Global South has been repeatedly let down by unmet pledges and commitments,” said Sunita Narain, director general of New Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment.

“Finance is really the key component that compels all types of climate action,” said Bahamian climate scientist Adelle Thomas, adaptation director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Without that finance, there's simply not much that developing countries in particular can do.”

It's an issue of both self-interest and justice, Thomas and others said. It's not charity to help poor nations decarbonize because rich nations benefit when all countries cut emissions. After all, a warming world hurts everyone.

Compensating for climate damage and helping nations prepare for future harm is a matter of justice, Thomas said. Even though they didn't create the problem, poor nations — especially small island nations — are particularly vulnerable to climate change's rising seas and extreme weather. Thomas mentioned how 2019's Hurricane Dorian smacked her grandparents home and “the only thing left standing was one toilet.”

The trillion-dollar figure on the table is about half of what the world spends annually on the military. Others say global fossil fuel subsidies could be redirected to climate finance; estimates of those subsidies range from the International Energy Agency’s $616 billion a year to the International Monetary Fund’s $7 trillion a year.

“When we need more for other things, including conflict, we seem to find it,” United Nations Environment Programme Executive Director Inger Andersen said. “Well, this is probably the largest conflict of all.”

A U.N. climate finance committee report looked at the need from 98 countries and estimated it as ranging from $455 billion to $584 billion per year.

The money isn't just direct government aid from one nation to another. Some of it comes from multinational development finance banks, like the World Bank. There's also private investment that will be considered a large chunk. Developing nations are seeking relief from their $29 trillion global debt.

Andersen said at least a sixfold increase in investment would be required to get on the path to limit future warming to just another two-tenths of a degree Celsius (0.4 degrees Fahrenheit) from now, which is the overarching goal the world adopted in 2015.

Andersen's agency calculated that with nations' current emissions-curbing targets, the difference between well-financed and current efforts translates to half a degree Celsius (0.9 degrees Fahrenheit) less future warming. Experts say stepped-up efforts that could reduce future warming even more also costs more.

Who will pay is another sticking point. Climate talks for decades have used 1992 standards to categorize two groups of nations, essentially rich and poor, deciding that rich nations like the U.S. are the ones to financially help poor ones. Financial circumstances have changed. China, the world’s top carbon polluter, has increased its per capita GDP by more than 30 times since then. But neither China nor some rich oil nations are obligated to help in climate finance.

Developed nations want those countries that couldn't afford to give before, but now can, included in the next round of donors. But those nations don't want those obligations, said E3G analyst Alden Meyer, a climate negotiations veteran.

“It’s a very fraught landscape to think about huge scale-up of existing climate finance,” Meyer said.

Associated Press reporter Sibi Arasu contributed to this report from Bengaluru, India.

Read more of AP’s climate coverage at http://www.apnews.com/climate-and-environment

Follow Seth Borenstein on X at @borenbears

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

FILE - A solar farm operates near wind turbines in Quy Non, Vietnam on June 11, 2023. (AP Photo/Minh Hoang, File)

FILE - People wade in a flooded street in the aftermath of Typhoon Yagi, in Hanoi, Vietnam, on Sept. 12, 2024. (AP Photo/Hau Dinh, File)

FILE - Mark Munyua, CP solar's technician, examines solar panels on the roof of a company in Nairobi, Kenya, Sept. 1, 2023. (AP Photo/Brian Inganga, File)

FILE - Tug boats pull barges fully loaded with coal on the Mahakam River in Samarinda, East Kalimantan, Indonesia, on Dec. 19, 2022. (AP Photo/Dita Alangkara, File)

FILE - Children play near solar panels on the roof of house in Walatungga village on Sumba Island, Indonesia, March 21, 2023. (AP Photo/Dita Alangkara)

FILE - Volunteers wade through a flooded road in the aftermath of Hurricane Dorian to rescue families near the Causarina bridge in Freeport, Grand Bahama, Bahamas, on Sept. 3, 2019. (AP Photo/Ramon Espinosa)

WASHINGTON (AP) — President-elect Donald Trump stunned the Pentagon and the broader defense world by nominating Fox News host Pete Hegseth to serve as his defense secretary, tapping someone largely inexperienced and untested on the global stage to take over the world's largest and most powerful military.

The news was met with bewilderment and worry among many in Washington as Trump passed on a number of established national security heavy-hitters and chose an Army National Guard captain well known in conservative circles as a co-host of Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends Weekend.”

While some Republican lawmakers had a muted response to the announcement, others called his combat experience an asset or said he was “tremendously capable.”

Hegseth's choice could bring sweeping changes to the military. He has made it clear on his show and in interviews that, like Trump, he is opposed to “woke” programs that promote equity and inclusion. He also has questioned the role of women in combat and advocated pardoning service members charged with war crimes.

In June, at a rally in Las Vegas, Trump encouraged his supporters to buy Hegseth’s book and said that if he won the presidency, "The woke stuff will be gone within a period of 24 hours. I can tell you.”

The 44-year-old Hegseth, a staunch conservative who embraces Trump's “America First” policies, has pushed for making the military more lethal. During an interview on “The Shawn Ryan Show” podcast, he said allowing women to serve in combat hurts that effort.

“Everything about men and women serving together makes the situation more complicated, and complication in combat, that means casualties are worse,” Hegseth said.

And while he said diversity in the military is a strength, he said it was because minority and white men can perform similarly but the same isn't true for women.

By opening combat slots to women, “we’ve changed the standards in putting them there, which means you’ve changed the capability of that unit,” Hegseth said in the podcast interview.

Since then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter opened all combat roles to women in 2016, women have successfully passed the military's grueling tests to become Green Berets and Army Rangers, and the Naval Special Warfare's test to serve as a combatant-craft crewman — the boat operators who transport Navy SEALs and conduct their own classified missions at sea.

While Trump lauded Hegseth as “tough, smart and a true believer in America First,” others were quick to point to the TV personality's lack of experience. Some suggested he could be Pentagon chief in name only as the Trump White House runs the department.

A number of other names floated as possible defense choices had included Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee; retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg; Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa; and Robert Wilkie, a former Pentagon official who was head of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Trump's first term.

“There is reason for concern that this is not a person who is a serious enough policymaker, serious enough policy implementer, to do a successful job,” said Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee.

Mark Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Hegseth's lack of senior national security experience makes it more difficult to get Senate confirmation.

“I think Trump was tired of fighting with his secretaries of defense and picked one who would be loyal to him,” Cancian said.

Military officials said the choice came out of the blue. A senior military officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media, said Hegseth's selection is raising concerns about whether he has the practical experience to manage a large department with an enormous budget.

The Defense Department has a budget exceeding $800 billion, with about 1.3 million active-duty troops and another 1.4 million in the National Guard, Reserves and civilian employees based worldwide.

If confirmed, Hegseth would face a daunting array of global crises, from the wars in the Middle East and Ukraine and the expanding alliance between Russia and North Korea to the growing competition with China. There is also the need to upgrade the complex U.S. missile and nuclear defense apparatus and ensure the defense industry can keep up with America's need for weapons systems.

Smith said that while Hegseth's combat experience is a plus, running the Pentagon requires a lot of other skill sets, and his nomination will need some time for consideration.

“What’s your plan? What are you going to do? ... How can you assure us that that lack of experience, you know, isn’t going to make it impossible for you to do the job?” Smith said. “I think those are questions that need to be answered over the next couple of months.”

Even some Republicans in the Senate, who would vote on his nomination, had a subdued response.

North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis called the choice “interesting.” Indiana Sen. Todd Young, who served in the Marine Corps, said, “I don’t know much about his background or his vision, so I look forward to learning more.”

North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven said he’s not surprised that Trump chose Hegseth because Trump is “close to him and likes him and trusts him.”

“The guy’s obviously tremendously capable, a great communicator," Hoeven said. "I look forward to getting to know him better.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said Hegseth brings a lot to the table and will be "reform-minded in the areas that need reform.”

Hegseth has been a contributor since 2014 for Fox News, developing a friendship with Trump, who made regular appearances on his show. He is the author of “The War on Warriors: Behind the Betrayal of the Men Who Keep Us Free.”

“With Pete at the helm, America’s enemies are on notice — Our Military will be Great Again, and America will Never Back Down,” Trump said in a statement. “Nobody fights harder for the Troops, and Pete will be a courageous and patriotic champion of our ‘Peace through Strength’ policy.”

Associated Press writers Jill Colvin in New York and Lisa Mascaro, Mary Clare Jalonick and Farnoush Amiri contributed to this report.

FILE - Pete Hegseth walks to an elevator for a meeting with President-elect Donald Trump at Trump Tower in New York, Dec. 15, 2016. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File)

File - President Donald Trump appears on Fox & Friends co-host Pete Hegseth at a Wounded Warrior Project Soldier Ride event in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Thursday, April 6, 2017. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File)

Trump's defense choice stuns the Pentagon, raises questions about the Fox News host's experience

Trump's defense choice stuns the Pentagon, raises questions about the Fox News host's experience