By Kate Abnett

BRUSSELS, (Reuters) – The U.N. Climate Science Report this week reveals the devastating economic losses and costs already incurred by climate change. This raises an obvious question: Who should be paying?

In U.N. climate negotiations “loss of damage” is the amount countries incur from climate-related disasters or impacts. These costs disproportionately affect the poorest and most vulnerable people on the planet, who have done the least to contribute to global warming.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Monday report, which drew on over 34,000 scientific papers from recent research papers, confirmed the economic damage to many sectors of the economy.

Extreme heat has fuelled crop losses. Rising sea levels have turbo-charged the cyclones, which have decimated homes and infrastructures, cutting economic growth.

And as the bills mount up, poorer countries are left with even less to spend on heath, education and infrastructure – compounding suffering.

Anjal Prakash is a leading IPCC author and researcher at the Indian School of Business.

It is possible that the report will intensify a decades-long political battle over funding to cover climate-related losses. This comes before U.N. Climate Summit COP27 in Eygpt this November.

Since years, vulnerable countries have been seeking funding to cover these expenses. It has yet to arrive, and the rich have refused steps that would legally assign responsibility or result in compensation.

In the 2015 Paris Agreement, the mention of loss and damage was accompanied by the warning that “it does not include or provide any basis for any liability or compensation”.

At the COP26 climate summit, in Glasgow last November, the poor nations demanded that a “loss-and-damage” special fund be created. However, the United States of America and other wealthy countries resisted. Delegates agreed to establish a U.N. entity to assist countries in addressing loss and damage and continue to discuss funding arrangements.

There isn’t any clarity about where that money comes from.

Harjeet, senior adviser to Climate Action Network, stated that it was not possible for us to just have more talk rooms when the people we love are dying. He stated that COP27 was required to create the financing facility for developing countries (including China) as a result of COP26.

Singh and other campaigners said the IPCC report – which has been approved by nearly 200 governments – could intensify pressure on the world’s most powerful nations.

It will enable us to show that science is now clearer and have more impact. This means that you will be held accountable and have to make payments,” Nushrat Chowdhury (a policy advisor for NGO Christian Aid) said.

COST ENTRY BOOKING

Climate losses are discussed in the report thanks to recent advances in “attribution science”, which allows scientists confirm whether or not climate change is responsible for a particular extreme weather phenomenon.

It is still difficult to determine how much of the losses result from a weather event. Can climate-related losses from weather events be distinguished from those caused by poor disaster planning? Are costs for other losses, like when nature is damaged or an area of burial ground is destroyed, possible to count?

Emily Boyd (a fellow IPCC author and a professor at Sweden’s Lund University) said, “We are still discussing that in the scientific comunity.”

As the cost of climate disasters rises and U.N. negotiations are stuck in their tracks, many people consider other options.

Saleemul Huq is an advisor to Climate Vulnerable Forum which includes 55 countries. He stated, “Liability or compensation can have other avenues to being taken forward. These are courts.”

Sophie Marjanac from environmental law firm ClientEarth stated that the IPCC report would “generally support litigation to address climate change.”

There are other hurdles to the legal path.

New York City tried to sue five oil companies under state law last year to compensate for global warming damage. A federal appeals judge rejected that attempt. According to the court, regulation of greenhouse gas emission should be handled under international and federal laws.

Marjanac stated that the challenges in climate change litigation relate to the law and not the science. “The science is very consistent over the years.