The North-South divide on climate change governance has become even more prominent accentuating the cooperation challenge

Global climate change is a common challenge for all mankind. It is not only an environmental issue, but also a development, political and security issue.

With the Paris Agreement, the global low-carbon transition accelerated. In terms of the overall process of global climate governance and climate negotiations, all parties have continued to make appropriate compromises in their differences and promoted cooperation from consensus. Taking the 27th session of the Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 27) as an example, it was agreed to establish a dedicated fund to provide loss and damage funding for vulnerable countries hit hard by floods, droughts and other climate disasters. This was widely lauded as a historic decision. The issue of climate reparations was also put on the formal agenda, signifying agreement on discussing whether developed countries should compensate underdeveloped countries that are most vulnerable to the effects of climate change.

The major countries are the main actors of the international community. They have absolute advantages in terms of economic strength, institutional leadership and international discourse power. And they are the mainstay of the global common response to climate change. International cooperation based on the consensus of major countries is the way to deal with climate change.

Unfortunately, the major power consensus on global climate governance is declining. This was clearly reflected in COP 27 and can be summarized in the following dimensions:

First, the contradictions between newly-emerging developing countries and developed countries, represented by China and the US, in global climate governance are rising, which has an important impact on global cooperation in combating climate change.

Second, the divergence around the 1.5 C goal of temperature control has intensified, and maintaining the 1.5 C goal of the Paris Agreement is at risk. With the frequent global energy crises and the energy supply chain disruption caused by the Russia-Ukraine conflict constantly impacting the international climate cooperation pattern, achieving the 1.5 C temperature control goal is becoming increasingly difficult. In this regard, different countries have divergent views.

Third, developed countries tend to maintain economic and technological advantages through beggar-thy-neighbor competitive policies. The growing urgency of developing countries to promote global development governance in accordance with the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" is also an important source of motivation for this conference to adopt the "loss and damage" mechanism.

Nevertheless, the North-South divide makes climate change governance even more difficult. Due to the inherent national conditions and historical development problems of the developing and the developed countries, there have been major differences on the issues of responsibility sharing, financial and technical assistance, and governance measures.

The climate negotiations are forging ahead amid twists and turns, forming a camp of climate negotiations that is interwoven with differentiation and restructuring. The main contradiction has shifted from one between the developed and the developing countries to one between large and small emitters.

At COP 27 in Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt, the contradictions between the North and the South were prominent, and the developing countries collectively demanded compensation from the developed countries.

Disaster and adaptation have become the focus of climate governance in the least developed countries. The Sharm el-Sheikh Implementation Plan specifically states that it "highlights the role of the Least Developed Countries Fund and the Special Climate Change Fund in supporting actions by the developing countries to address climate change, welcomes the pledges made to the two funds and invites the developed countries to further contribute to the two funds".

The Loss and Damage Fund has become a demand of the developing countries. Bangladesh urged the developed countries to double their adaptation funding by 2025 to implement the National Adaptation Plans.

The G77+China, the Alliance of Small Island States, the Least Developed Countries, the Bolivarian Alliance for the People of Our America and the Association of Independent Latin American and Caribbean all have different demands, but they insist on the unified position that "developed countries should bear the main responsibility for global climate change".

China has always been a firm promoter of and active practitioner in global climate governance, and China is in a special position: It is the largest emitter and the largest developing country. This requires China to respond to climate change with a judicious strategy.

First, it should actively respond to the theme of the conference and prevent the developed countries from diluting adaptation issues with mitigation issues. It should seek to unite countries with similar positions, stressing that the developed countries, as major contributors of historical emissions, should provide assistance to the developing countries in their current climate adaptation challenges.

In addition, it should coordinate with the developed countries and strengthen exchanges with them on specific and necessary issues. It should urge the international community to strengthen the monitoring of the funds pledged by the European Union, the United States and Canada, and make this issue a priority for negotiations at the climate conference. China needs to actively carry out communication and cooperation with major countries, shelve institutional disputes on climate governance, and make full use of multilateral platforms such as the UN Climate Conference and the G20 to enhance exchanges and strengthen cooperation on climate adaptation. It could also seek to establish a regional climate action platform.

It should also strive to accelerate the transition to green energy, strengthen the resilience of the energy supply chain and develop green finance assets so as to give full play to the role of market-oriented green finance in promoting green technology innovation. Attention should be paid to the pricing power and construction of a new energy pricing system.

Yu Hongyuan is a professor and the director of the Institute for Public Policy and Innovation at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies. Zhang Aiyi is a research assistant at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies. The authors contributed this article to China Watch, a think tank powered by China Daily.