You did it, Anwar

Now that the United Nations believes that the world population has exceeded eight billion, let's tell more people about this newsletter. We can also exceed the number of subscribers of this newsletter. We're currently at 16thousandsomething. Can we make it to 20,000?

This issue includes a 'breakthrough agreement' on climate change funding among world leaders, Malaysia's new prime minister with the 'Obama touch', the earthquake in Indonesia, mass shootings in Brazil and the United States, a court decision in Algeria that will most likely shock you out of your boots and some good news in science (yay, Artemis 1, you made it!), some justice was served at court in the Philippines, a rare 'we agree' moment between Kosovo and Serbia and another rare moment, a ceasefire, between Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda. And so much more.

World leaders reached a 'breakthrough agreement' in the fight against climate change

The world's most international conference on climate change closed last week with what many call a 'breakthrough agreement' to, at least, give countries that are hit the hardest by climate change some financial cushion to prepare for and deal with all of it. This is called the 'loss and damage' argument in the global discussion around how to fight climate change.

Why this matters:
For the longest time, since 1992, countries dealing with the effects of climate change the most have demanded, 'We didn't cause this in the first place, you did. At least help us fight it with better tools.' Now, their calls have finally been heard.

What is this conference about?
The United Nations organizes it every year. It has a really long name, the United Framework Convention on Climate Change, 27th Conference of the Parties, or short COP27. This year, it took place from November 6 until 20 in Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypt. Many world leaders came together to talk about the challenges they have to somehow face together. According to the UNFCCC, more than 45,000 people attended the conference.

Tell me more about the 'breakthrough agreement':
You see, climate funding so far has focused mostly on cutting carbon dioxide emissions in an effort to stop global warming, while about a third of it has gone towards projects to help communities adapt to future impacts. Now, world leaders have decided to shift their focus and their funding goals. Cue 'loss and damage' funding.

Okay. How is 'loss and damage' funding different?
Well, it specifically covers the cost of damage that countries cannot avoid or adapt to. This is still a very contentious topic. As of now, there is no agreement yet over what should count as 'loss and damage' caused by climate change, which could include damaged infrastructure and property, as well as harder-to-value natural ecosystems or cultural assets.

Why is this different form of funding so important?
A report by 55 vulnerable countries estimated their combined climate-linked losses over the last two decades totalled $525 billion, or 20 percent of their collective gross domestic product (GDP). Some research suggests that by 2030, such losses could reach $580 billion per year. Basically, vulnerable-to-climate-change-effects countries are losing a lot of money; money that could instead be spent on solving the challenges they are already facing like poverty reduction or gender equality.

How does it work exactly?
That is unclear yet. The text of the agreement that everybody agreed on at the conference leaves open a number of crucial details to be worked out next year and beyond, including who would contribute to the fund and who would benefit. Expect first results at COP28 in United Arab Emirates in November 2023. There is also, so far, little money for the fund, as few nations have made significant pledges of cash for loss and damage. (UNFCCC)

Where do people think should the money for the 'loss and damage' fund come from?
Vulnerable-to-climate-change-effects countries and campaigners in the past argued that rich countries that caused much of climate change with their historical greenhouse gas emissions should pay. However, now, the agreement calls for the funds to come from many other but existing sources, like financial institutions, rather than relying on rich nations to pay up. Other ideas include UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres's call for a windfall profit tax on fossil fuel companies to raise funding. (Al Jazeera)

How did poorer nations react to the fund announcement?
Mostly positive reactions. Here is a list of comments:

Egypt's Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry said "it is appropriate that the loss and damage fund was agreed in Africa."

Pakistan's Climate Change Minister Sherry Rehman, "this is a not about accepting charity. This is a down payment on investment in our futures, and in climate justice."

Antigua and Barbuda's Minister of Health, Wellbeing and the Environment Sir Molwyn Joseph said: "Today, the international community has restored global faith in this critical process that is dedicated to ensuring no one is left behind. The agreements made at Cop27 are a win for our entire world. We have shown those who have felt neglected that we hear you, we see you, and we are giving you the respect and care you deserve. We must work even harder to hold firm to the 1.5C warming limit, to operationalise the loss and damage fund, and continue to create a world that is safe, fair, and equitable for all."

What do others say?
Adil Najam, professor of International Relations at...