Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

The recent UN climate change meeting at Warsaw ended on a note of disappointment. What dominated the discussion, as usual, was money rather than climate change. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was instituted way back in 1992, and yet the question of "who pays?" has still not been resolved.

To start with, the developed countries that had earlier pledged to mobilize $100 billion per year by 2020 to poorer countries at the 2009 Copenhagen summit are yet to finalize the specifics of the fund.

Moreover, a proposal by developing countries demanding developed countries compensate them for irreparable damage caused by climate-related disasters, in the wake of the typhoon Haiyan that devastated the Philippines, was struck down by the latter. This resulted in the staging of a walkout by the G77 plus China.

Interestingly, of the finances that have so far been provided by developed countries, an overwhelming majority is aimed at funding mitigation projects rather than adaptation.

Countries that are more vulnerable to extreme weather events, especially the least developed countries and small island developing states, require more adaptation funds for disaster preparedness, mitigation, relief, recovery and reconstruction.

The paucity of climate finance makes poorer countries more dependent on grants from Western international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

The "ownership" of the Green Climate Fund is also hanging in the balance. While developing countries want it under the UNFCCC, wealthier countries want it to be controlled by the World Bank - an organization whose voting rights depend on financial contributions.

Another resolution that was rejected by developed countries was the one moved by Brazil asking the international community to develop a mechanism via the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), by which the historical emissions of every country could be quantified.

To say that China and India are emitting as much or more than them now by negating the developed countries' emissions since mid-19th century is not acceptable to the leadership of these two Asian giants.

This is not the first time promises have remained unfulfilled. Not every Annex-I (developed) country that was party to the Kyoto Protocol complied with the emissions reduction target during the first commitment period (2007-12).

For instance, Canada, after having failed to fulfill its commitment, decided to withdraw from the treaty in 2011. The US did not even ratify it.

Japan cut a sorry figure by admitting that in the light of the post-Fukushima drawdown in the nuclear power industry, it might fall well short of its original target of 25 percent below 1990 levels. In fact, the country is likely to end up emitting 3 percent more compared to 1990 levels.

Australia's decision-makers have decided to repeal the nation's carbon tax. The country's lack of commitment toward the UN summit was proven by the absence of a ministerial representative on the occasion as well as its new government's announcement that it would not further contribute to any international climate change funds.

The agreement on deforestation, which would provide economic incentives to countries to reduce emissions emanating from deforestation and a way for the developed countries to pay for their own emissions, salvaged the Warsaw summit. Norway, Britain and the US together pledged $280 million for this cause.

Developed countries' utter disregard for the principles of "common but differentiated responsibilities" and equity have paved the way for a much weaker international treaty that is expected to come into force by 2020.

By 2015, each country is expected to present its own target in terms of emissions reduction, which is very informal in comparison to the binding targets allocated by the Kyoto Protocol.

There have been calls to incorporate trade sanctions for non-compliance in the future agreement to give teeth to global environmental governance.

However, the global climate order is designed in such a way that if developed countries sidestep their commitments, they can get away with it, but if developing countries fail at international compliance, trade sanctions can be imposed on them.

It is unreasonable to demand that India and China sign a legally binding international treaty when developed countries have not met the majority of their commitments, including the sharing of financial and technological resources with developing countries.

The previous dream of restricting temperature rises to less than 2 C, to avoid the catastrophic effects of climate change, has become a distant one. The 2013 IPCC assessment report that reinforced for a fifth time the human contributions to climate change has been forgotten too.

The author is a PhD candidate in the Department of Geopolitics and International Relations, Manipal University in India. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn