WORLD leaders meet again to address the difficulties in dealing with the looming climate crisis.
They meet to share their report cards on what they have done, or have not done, after the COP26 meeting in Glasgow, Scotland, last year.
Since the historic Paris Agreement in 2015, pledges were made on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, financing and sharing of technology.
This time, they meet in Egypt at the popular resort of Sharm El Sheikh, on the banks of the Nile River, which is already embroiled in a climate-related scuffle with countries through which the river passes through.
Water is at the centre of a growing dispute between the source country of Ethiopia and the other Nile countries of Sudan and Egypt.
It is about water for energy, agriculture and food. Both energy and food are critical consequential elements of a climate crisis, which world leaders continue to debate on.
While the Egypt summit is running, a report was made about an oil terminal dumping toxic wastewater on the country's Red Sea coast. A rare form of corals, that offer hope for the preservation of ocean life as the planet warms, could be a casualty, according to the report.
Such cases of water pollution caused by industrial waste discharges put further pressure on nature. The United Nations has warned that if the global average temperature rises by 1.5°C, 90 per cent of the world's coral will be wiped out.
But, despite the Red Sea's temperatures rising faster than the global average, the region's "super corals" have so far proven to be resilient to the effects of climate change.
Some scientists believe Red Sea corals could hold the secret to saving corals around the world.
Despite covering only 0.1 per cent of the oceans, coral reefs are home to 30 per cent of marine biodiversity. It is, of course, typical for such publicity to emerge on the sidelines of COP meetings.
It has been reported that the fear of countries backsliding on commitments to tackle the climate crisis dominated COP27 in Egypt.
Governments are supposed to be building on pledges made last year at COP26 in Glasgow.
These include limiting global heating to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, doubling the financial assistance to poor countries to adapt to the impact of extreme weather, and addressing the issue of loss and damage, which means financial assistance for countries stricken by climate disaster.
In Paris, developed economies promised US$100 billion a year to finance the transition. That should work out to a total of US$700 billion in the current year.
But it has been reported that only US$80 billion was collected. There was evidence that some countries were attempting to unpick agreements and water down commitments. A broken promise.
Greta Thunberg, the Swedish youth activist, tweeted: "Sweden opposes the creation of a fund for climate damage, and thus complicates the negotiations on COP27. This fund would provide crucial support for those most affected — it is a matter of life and death for countless people."
The question of whether there should be a whole new fund for loss and damage, and how any such fund should be administered, is a bone of contention at the talks.
However, other developing countries believe there can be a different approach, which would combine funding from various sources, including the World Bank, an insurance programme created by Germany and the G7 called the Global Shield, and existing climate finance bodies such as the Global Environment Facility.
The G77 proposal says a new fund is needed "to assist developing countries in meeting their costs of addressing non-economic and economic loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, including extreme weather events and slow onset events".
Loss and damage are for many climate-vulnerable countries the most important and contested aspect of the finance negotiations. The rest of climate finance, concerning adaptation and mitigation, is also slow moving.
While such world science diplomacy continues to witness intense negotiation and horse-trading the world is sweating it out.
Many countries are already seeing the consequences of such foot-dragging.
What is clear is that we are not short of unfulfilled pledges and broken promises.
The writer is a professor at the Tan Sri Omar Centre for STI Policy, UCSI University
