Play all audios:
The second is the atmosphere of mistrust that exists among Parties with respect to who will bear the mitigation burden. The political undercurrents that shape the MWP heavily influence the
discussions. It is hard to say if the original proposal put forth by the US at COP26 was made in good faith for planetary benefit, or with an intent to have developing countries shoulder an
equal burden, despite developed countries being historical polluters. Developing countries have stated through the years that climate talks focus excessively on mitigation, and not
sufficiently on their other priorities such as adaptation and loss and damage. The Paris Agreement itself diluted the idea of differentiated burden-sharing according to historical
responsibility, by placing the equal burden of NDCs on all countries. This explains why developing countries repeat that the MWP must be non-prescriptive, and not force new targets on them
beyond what is already committed in the NDCs. Moreover, whenever developing countries demand differentiated timelines and finance on issues such as fossil fuels, they are branded as
‘blockers of ambition’, as seen in the GST’s behind-the-scenes deliberations.