ዘመኑ ባፈራው የቴክኖሎጂ ግብአት በመጠቀም ለህብረተሰባችን ስራ ለሁሉም በሚል ግብ የተሻለ የስራ አማራጭ፣ ለተሻለ ኑሮ፣ ለተሻለ የገበያ ትስስር ፣ ለተቀናጀ የገበያ ተደራሽነት ገዥን ከደንበኛ የማስተሳሰሪያ የቴክኖሎጂ አማራጭ ይዘን መተናል በሁሉም የስራ መስክ በሁሉም የስራ እርከን ስራ ለሚገኙ ባለሙያዎች እና ድርጅቶች የስራ አጋጣሚን መፍጠር
ዘመኑ ባፈራው የቴክኖሎጂ ግብአት በመጠቀም ለህብረተሰባችን ስራ ለሁሉም በሚል ግብ የተሻለ የስራ አማራጭ፣ ለተሻለ ኑሮ፣ ለተሻለ የገበያ ትስስር ፣ ለተቀናጀ የገበያ ተደራሽነት ገዥን ከደንበኛ የማስተሳሰሪያ የቴክኖሎጂ አማራጭ ይዘን መተናል በሁሉም የስራ መስክ በሁሉም የስራ እርከን ስራ ለሚገኙ ባለሙያዎች እና ድርጅቶች የስራ አጋጣሚን መፍጠር
ዘመኑ ባፈራው የቴክኖሎጂ ግብአት በመጠቀም ለህብረተሰባችን ስራ ለሁሉም በሚል ግብ የተሻለ የስራ አማራጭ፣ ለተሻለ ኑሮ፣ ለተሻለ የገበያ ትስስር ፣ ለተቀናጀ የገበያ ተደራሽነት ገዥን ከደንበኛ የማስተሳሰሪያ የቴክኖሎጂ አማራጭ ይዘን መተናል በሁሉም የስራ መስክ በሁሉም የስራ እርከን ስራ ለሚገኙ ባለሙያዎች እና ድርጅቶች የስራ አጋጣሚን መፍጠር
.jpg)
ዘመኑ ባፈራው የቴክኖሎጂ ግብአት በመጠቀም ለህብረተሰባችን ስራ ለሁሉም በሚል ግብ የተሻለ የስራ አማራጭ፣ ለተሻለ ኑሮ፣ ለተሻለ የገበያ ትስስር ፣ ለተቀናጀ የገበያ ተደራሽነት ገዥን ከደንበኛ የማስተሳሰሪያ የቴክኖሎጂ አማራጭ ይዘን መተናል በሁሉም የስራ መስክ በሁሉም የስራ እርከን ስራ ለሚገኙ ባለሙያዎች እና ድርጅቶች የስራ አጋጣሚን መፍጠር
E-Commerce
Hotel Booking
Rent
Item Tenders
Service Tenders
Bids
Job Vaccancy
Freelancing Job
Service Booking
Entertailment
Search
👁 :
“The ability to perform well begins with taking responsibility for all the things that happen to and on your life.” Brian Tracy
“Most of us don’t want freedom, because freedom requires responsibility; and many of us are afraid to take responsibility.” Sigmund Freud
Only one person is responsible for your life, and that person is you! Not your boss, not your spouse, not your parents, not your friends, not your customers, not the economy, not the weather. You are your own head! If we stop blaming other people for all the things that happen in our lives, everything will start to change! Taking responsibility for your life means leading your own life and being the lead actor in your life.
👁 :
The digital economy is an economy that uses modern technology, especially the Internet, data and digital messages to grow the economy, increase productivity and services and sales are done digitally
In the digital economy, two people don’t need to be physically present to produce or sell something. Using technology, you can produce, sell and buy things from different places.
In the digital economy, digital information is coordinated to provide high-quality services for trade, financial services and devices such as telephone, Wi-Fi, internet and others.
Digitization:- means the digitalization of routine tasks that were previously done physically. In digitization, eliminating/reducing the use of paper and office is doing things through electronic devices.
👁 :
One of the innovations at this year's Paris Olympics was supposed to be an electric flying taxi service.
Germany's Volocopter promised its electric-powered, two-seater aircraft, the VoloCity, would be ferrying passengers around the city.
It never happened. Instead the company ran demonstration flights.
While missing that deadline was embarrassing, behind the scenes a more serious issue was playing out - Volocopter was urgently trying to raise fresh investment to keep the firm going.
Talks to borrow €100m (£83m; $106m) from the government failed in April.
Now hopes are pinned on China's Geely, which is in talks to take an 85% stake in Volocopter in return for $95m of funding, according to a Bloomberg report. The deal could mean that any future manufacturing would be moved to China.
Volocopter is one of dozens of companies around the world developing an electric vertical take-off and landing (EVTOL) aircraft.
Their machines promise the flexibility of a helicopter, but without the cost, noise and emissions.
However, faced with the massive cost of getting such novel aircraft approved by regulators and then building up manufacturing capabilities, some investors are bailing out.The company has made progress. After completing a programme of remote-controlled testing, it began carrying out piloted tests earlier this year. Initially, these were carried out with the aircraft tethered to the ground. In early November, it carried out its first untethered take-off and landing.
But there have also been serious setbacks. In August last year, a remotely-piloted prototype was badly damaged when it crashed during testing at Cotswold Airport, after a propeller blade fell off.
In May one of its key partners, the engineering giant Rolls Royce pulled out of a deal to supply electric motors for the aircraft.
Ambitions remain sky high. Vertical Aerospace says it will deliver 150 aircraft to its customers by the end of the decade. By then, it also expects to be capable of producing 200 units a year, and to be breaking even in cash terms.
Yet financial strains have been intensifying. Mr Fitzpatrick invested an extra $25m into the company in March. But a further $25m, due in August if alternative investment could not be found, has not been paid. As of September, Vertical had $57.4m on hand – but it expects to burn through nearly double that over the coming year.
Hopes for the future appear to be pinned on doing a deal with the American financier Jason Mudrick, who is already a major creditor through his firm Mudrick Capital Management.He has offered to invest $75m into the business – and has warned the board of Vertical that rejecting his plan would inevitably lead to insolvency proceedings. But the move has been resisted by Mr Fitzpatrick, who would lose control of the company he founded.
Sources close to the talks insist an agreement is now very close. The company believes if a deal can be done, it will unlock further fundraising opportunities.Amid the turbulence, one European project is quietly on track, says Bjorn Fehrm who has a background in aeronautical engineering and piloted combat jets for the Swedish Air Force. He now works for aerospace consultancy Leeham.
He says that the EVTOL project underway at Airbus is likely to survive.
Called the CityAirbus NextGen, the four-seater aircraft has eight propellers and a range of 80km.
"This is a technology project for their engineers, and they've got the money, and they've got the know how," says Mr Fehrm.
Elsewhere in the world, other well funded start-ups stand a good change of getting their aircraft into production. That would include Joby and Archer in the US.
Once the aircraft are being produced, the next challenge will be to see if there's a profitable market for them.
The first routes are likely to be between airports and city centres. But will they make money?
"The biggest problem area when it comes to the cost of operation is the pilot and the batteries. You need to change the batteries a couple of times per year,"
👁 :7
The Voynich manuscript is an illustrated codex, hand-written in an unknown script referred to as Voynichese.[18] The vellum on which it is written has been carbon-dated to the early 15th century (1404–1438). Stylistic analysis has indicated the manuscript may have been composed in Italy during the Italian Renaissance.[1][2] While the origins, authorship, and purpose of the manuscript are still debated, hypotheses range from a script for a natural language or constructed language, an unread code, cypher, or other form of cryptography, or perhaps a hoax, reference work (i.e. folkloric index or compendium), glossolalia[19] or work of fiction (e.g. science fantasy or mythopoeia, meta fiction, speculative fiction) currently lacking the translation(s) and context needed to both properly entertain or eliminate any of these possibilities.
Many call the fifteenth-century codex, commonly known as the “Voynich Manuscript,” the world’s most mysterious book. Written in an unknown script by an unknown author, the manuscript has no clearer purpose now than when it was rediscovered in 1912 by rare books dealer Wilfrid Voynich. The manuscript appears and disappears throughout history, from the library of the Holy Roman Emperor Rudolf II to a secret sale of books in 1903 by the Society of Jesus in Rome. The book’s language has eluded decipherment, and its elaborate illustrations remain as baffling as they are beautiful. For the first time, this facsimile, complete with elaborate folding sections, allows readers to explore this enigma in all its stunning detail, from its one-of-a-kind “Voynichese” text to its illustrations of otherworldly plants, unfamiliar constellations, and naked women swimming though fantastical tubes and green baths.
Written in Central Europe at the end of the 15th or during the 16th century, the origin, language, and date of the Voynich Manuscript—named after the Polish-American antiquarian bookseller, Wilfrid M. Voynich, who acquired it in 1912—are still being debated as vigorously as its puzzling drawings and undeciphered text. Described as a magical or scientific text, nearly every page contains botanical, figurative, and scientific drawings of a provincial but lively character, drawn in ink with vibrant washes in various shades of green, brown, yellow, blue, and red.
Based on the subject matter of the drawings, the contents of the manuscript fall into six sections: 1) botanicals containing drawings of 113 unidentified plant species; 2) astronomical and astrological drawings including astral charts with radiating circles, suns and moons, Zodiac symbols such as fish (Pisces), a bull (Taurus), and an archer (Sagittarius), nude females emerging from pipes or chimneys, and courtly figures; 3) a biological section containing a myriad of drawings of miniature female nudes, most with swelled abdomens, immersed or wading in fluids and oddly interacting with interconnecting tubes and capsules; 4) an elaborate array of nine cosmological medallions, many drawn across several folded folios and depicting possible geographical forms; 5) pharmaceutical drawings of over 100 different species of medicinal herbs and roots portrayed with jars or vessels in red, blue, or green, and 6) continuous pages of text, possibly recipes, with star-like flowers marking each entry in the margins.
Refence
https://beinecke.library.yale.edu/collections/highlights/voynich-manuscript
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voynich_manuscript
https://yalebooks.yale.edu/9780300217230/the-voynich-manuscript
👁 :
Tonight’s debate between founder Michael Tyson and legendary founder Jack Joseph Paul is highly anticipated.
The debate between 58-year-old adult boxer #Michael Tyson and 27-year-old young boxer #Jack_Joseph_Paul has captured the hearts of the world starting at 5:00 pm today in Arlington, Texas.
More than 200 million and 80 million people are expected to watch the debate, which will be broadcast live on Netflix.
👁 :
Air pollution in India's capital Delhi has soared to extremely severe levels, choking residents and engulfing the city in thick smog.
Monitors recorded pollution levels of 1,500 at 15:00 IST (10:30 BST), according to tech company IQAir - 15 times the level the Word Health Organization (WHO) considers satisfactory for breathing.
The toxic air has disrupted flight services, and had already prompted authorities to shut schools and ban construction work in the city.
It comes just weeks after Lahore, in neighbouring Pakistan, also recorded pollution levels above 1,000.
And experts warn that the situation could get worse in Delhi in the coming days, saying more severe measures may be needed to combat the city's pollution problem.
According to the WHO, air with Air Quality Index (AQI) values above 300 are considered to be hazardous for health.
India's pollution control authority has classified the air in Delhi as "severe plus", after the city passed 450 according to its measurements on Monday morning.
As well as shutting schools and banning construction work, the city has also banned the entry of non-essential trucks into Delhi and has asked all offices to ask 50% of their staff to work from home.
Last week, the government banned all activities that involve the use of coal and firewood, as well as diesel generator use for non-emergency services.Every year, Delhi, India's northern states and parts of Pakistan battle hazardous air during the winter months of October to January due to plummeting temperatures, smoke, dust, low wind speed, vehicular emissions and crop stubble burning.
And every year, the government imposes pollution control measures during these months.
Yet, Delhi's pollution problem hasn't gone away.
On Monday, Delhi's Chief Minister Atishi said that all of northern India was experiencing a "medical emergency" due to stubble burning continuing unchecked across the country, particularly in the neighbouring states of Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.
She accused the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of not taking steps to curb the practice despite the problem intensifying over the past five years.
The BJP, in turn, has blamed Delhi's ruling Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) for not being able to put a check to pollution in the city.
Meanwhile, Delhi's residents continue to gasp for air.
"Woke up with a itchy, painful throat.. even two air purifiers are not making the AQI breathable indoors. Children are breathing in gas chamber," one user wrote on X (formerly Twitter).
Another user called for a "peaceful mass protest on the streets". "The air we breathe is lethally toxic," he wrote.
👁 :
President Biden’s decision to allow Ukraine to strike inside Russia with long-range missiles supplied by the US has sparked a furious response in Russia.
"Departing US president Joe Biden… has taken one of the most provocative, uncalculated decisions of his administration, which risks catastrophic consequences," declared the website of the Russian government newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta on Monday morning.
Russian MP Leonid Slutsky, head of the pro-Kremlin Liberal-Democratic Party, predicted that the decision would "inevitably lead to a serious escalation, threatening serious consequences".
Russian senator Vladimir Dzhabarov called it "an unprecedented step towards World War Three".Anger, yes. But no real surprise.
Komsomolskaya Pravda, the pro-Kremlin tabloid, called it "a predictable escalation".
What really counts, though, is what Vladimir Putin calls it and how the Kremlin leader responds.
So far he’s stayed silent.
But on Monday President Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov told journalists that “if such a decision has been taken it means a whole new spiral of tension and a whole new situation with regard to US involvement in this conflict".
Mr Peskov accused the Biden administration of “adding fuel to the fire and continuing to stoke tension around this conflict".
Follow live: Biden allows Ukraine to strike inside Russia with US missiles
Western leaders would argue that it’s Russia that is ‘adding the fuel’ by recently deploying North Korean troops to the war zone to fight alongside Russian forces and by continuing to attack Ukraine.
President Putin himself may have yet to comment. But Russia’s president has said plenty before.
In recent months, the Kremlin has made its message to the West crystal clear: do not do this, do not remove restrictions on the use of your long-range weapons, do not allow Kyiv to strike deep into Russian territory with these missiles.
In September President Putin warned that if this were allowed to happen, Moscow would view it as the "direct participation" of Nato countries in the Ukraine war.
"This would mean that Nato countries… are fighting with Russia," he continued.
The following month, the Kremlin leader announced imminent changes to the Russian nuclear doctrine, the document setting out the preconditions under which Moscow might decide to use a nuclear weapon.
This was widely interpreted as another less-than-subtle hint to America and Europe not to allow Ukraine to strike Russian territory with long-range missiles.
Guessing Vladimir Putin’s next moves is never easy.
But he has dropped hints.
Back in June, at a meeting with the heads of international news agencies, Putin was asked: how would Russia react if Ukraine was given the opportunity to hit targets on Russian territory with weapons supplied by Europe?
"First, we will, of course, improve our air defence systems. We will be destroying their missiles," President Putin replied.
"Second, we believe that if someone is thinking it is possible to supply such weapons to a war zone to strike our territory and create problems for us, why can’t we supply our weapons of the same class to those regions around the world where they will target sensitive facilities of the countries that are doing this to Russia?"
In other words, arming Western adversaries to strike Western targets abroad is something Moscow has been considering.In my recent interview with Alexander Lukashenko, the leader of Belarus, Putin's close ally seemed to confirm the Kremlin has been thinking along these lines.
Mr Lukashenko told me he had discussed the subject at a recent meeting with Western officials.
"I warned them. 'Guys, be careful with those long-range missiles,'" Mr Lukashenko told me.
"The Houthi [rebels] might come to Putin and ask for coastal weapons systems that can carry out terrifying strikes on ships.
"And if he gets his revenge on you for supplying long-range weapons to [President] Zelensky by supplying the Houthis with the Bastion missile system? What happens if an aircraft carrier is hit? A British or American one. What then?"
How long-range missiles striking Russia could affect Ukraine war
But some of the media reaction in Russia appeared designed to play things down.
"The Russian armed forces had already [previously] intercepted ATACMS missiles during attacks on the Crimean shore," a military expert told the Izvestia newspaper, which went on to suggest that President-elect Trump might "revise" the decision.
This is, to put it mildly, an unusual situation.
In two months’ time, President Biden will be out of office and Donald Trump will be in the White House.
The Kremlin knows that President-elect Trump has been far more sceptical than President Biden about military assistance for Ukraine.
Will that be a factor in Vladimir Putin’s calculations as he formulates Russia’s response?
0.jpg)
👁 :
As countries negotiate a new global goal to raise climate cash, these five charts show why discussions are so fraught.
A hundred billion dollars. It's a staggering amount of money, although there are in fact now 16 individuals with personal assets worth more than this amount. But at the ongoing UN climate talks it's also a highly loaded figure, especially for countries on the frontlines of climate change.
It's the threshold amount that, back during turbulent negotiations in 2009, rich countries promised to "mobilise" each year by 2020 to help the billions of people in developing countries transition to a greener economy and cope with the impacts of climate change.
This may sound like a lot, but it is already considered too little. The new number that's being floated by many developing countries: at least a trillion.
Climate negotiators at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, are discussing the details of how much money rich countries should provide to poor countries to help them mitigate emissions and cope with climate impacts. What they haven't decided yet is how much it will be – or many of the other details, such as who will contribute what and is the target date to deliver the money. A huge range of options have been put forward by different groups and countries.
The question is ultimately one of justice, those countries say. Richer nations have, after all, historically caused the lion's share of climate change. Poorer nations not only have less means to make costly climate adaptations, but the problem of climate change was also largely not of their making. (Read more about the world's fight for climate justice).
Climate finance is "not charity", Ani Dasgupta, president of the World Resources Institute, a non-profit based in Washington DC, told a press briefing ahead of COP29. It is needed for the world to be "in a better place," he said, adding: "Developing countries cannot meet their transition goals if there is no finance."
As talks continue in Baku, here are five key charts to help put the fraught discussions into context – and show what is really at stake.
What's been paid so far?
Money is a tough topic that has caused a lot of tension at climate talks for decades now, even as climate costs around the world continue to rise.
Rich countries failed to meet their promised 2020 deadline for the $100bn goal, only reaching the yearly goal for the first time two years later in 2022, as the chart below using figures from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) shows. These countries have also been criticised for how they are delivering the money: for example, they are primarily providing money in the form of low-interest loans, that have be repaid, rather than grants, which don't. Countries have also reclassified existing development aid rather than contributing fresh funding, according to a report by the climate news site Carbon Brief. Analysis by other organisations and researchers say the amount transferred is actually far lower than the OECD figures, meaning the $100bn goal still hasn't been met.
Speaking at COP29, UN climate chief Antonio Guterres said "now more than ever" finance promises must be kept. "Developing countries eager to act [on climate change] are facing many obstacles: scant public finance; raging cost of capital; crushing climate disasters; and debt servicing that soaks up funds," he said. "We need a new finance goal that meets the moment."
If the new climate finance goal fails, we will all feel the impact, says Charlene Watson, senior research associate at Overseas Development Institute (ODI), a global think tank based in London, UK. "It [would be] a global failure. We are all not reaching the global 1.5C target." (Read more about why 1.5C is a critical threshold for the climate).
Why do we need a new finance goal?
The focus on climate finance is coming now because back in 2015, countries at the COP21 talks in Paris agreed to set a new collective goal for it before 2025.
The $100bn goal, which was announced 15 years ago at a previous conference, COP15, is "now clearly out of sync with the total needs" of developing countries, says Joe Thwaites, senior advocate in international climate finance at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a US non-profit.
More like this:
• The people cracking the world's toughest climate words
• Five nature wins that have actually worked
• A famous climate graphic is running out of red
The only conditions fully agreed so far for the new goal are that it will be "from a floor of $100bn per year" and "take into account the needs and priorities of developing countries".
The original $100bn goal, in contrast, was a political number, says Watson. "It wasn't a number that was based on developing country needs. The [new goal] is supposed to be based on those needs. And those needs are just tremendous."
What's actually needed?
It's hard to say exactly what reducing emissions and coping with climate impacts has already cost developing countries or will cost in the future. This has led to huge range of estimates of the money that is needed via the new goal.
Scientific understanding of these needs has come on "leaps and bounds" in recent years but is still challenging, "particularly as we've got so many moving pieces", says Thwaites. "The cost of [green] technology is going down in many cases, but on the other hand, climate impacts are increasing far faster than we were necessarily expecting. So it's very complicated to model these things out."
The chart below shows the large range in estimates of annual climate finance needs in developing countries by 2030. Even though estimates of what's needed are "not perfect", adds Thwaites, "they do show that total needs are in the trillions of dollars per year".
One key estimate of needs comes from research by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) of developing countries' national climate plans. It found that, in total, these countries have said they need $502bn (£394bn) specifically from developed countries each year until 2030. Their total financial needs, however, amounted to more than 10 times this value at $5.8-5.9tn (£4.5-4.6tn), and it's not clear where the most of the remaining money would come from. Many countries also didn't account for all the costs of climate change, such as the irreversible losses and damages caused by climate-related disasters, which is not covered by the $100bn goal but developing countries are calling for the new goal to include.
These values may also change when countries update their national climate plans by early 2025. On the other hand, a stronger new climate finance goal at COP29 could lead to stronger national climate plans from poorer countries.
Ahead of the current talks, some developing countries and groups of developing countries put "very big numbers on the table", says Watson. "They want the goal to look like a trillion [dollars per year]," she says. "Developed countries haven't yet officially put a quantum on the table, so we don't know how much bigger than $100bn it's going to be."
An expert group of economists established by the COP26 and COP27 presidencies has similarly recommended that rich countries spend $1tn (£785bn) annually by 2030 on climate and nature investments in developing countries, out of $2.4tn (£1.88tn) in total needs in these countries.
But this calculation does not take into account China's financial needs. China is considered to be a developing country in the UN climate process, this makes the economists' calculation "a difficult number to try and use in a [final COP] decision", says Thwaites.
How $100bn compares to fossil fuel earnings
It's often pointed out that $100bn is a drop in the ocean compared with the money flowing through financial markets around the world.
Notably, revenues in the oil and gas industry have averaged close to $3.5tn (£2.75tn) per year since 2018.
Oil and gas earnings soared from 2022 due to the surging price of oil and gas following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. In 2023, the world's largest five fossil fuel companies paid their shareholders $111bn (£87.4bn), according to analysis by Global Witness, a non-profit with offices in London and Washington DC. BP and Shell both reported their second highest annual profit in a decade in 2023, a total of $13.8bn (£11bn) and $28.2bn (£22.3bn) respectively.
Fossil fuel companies' revenues, combined with soaring coal, oil and gas emissions, have led some groups to suggest sourcing climate finance directly from the fossil fuel sector.
One proposal, backed by several climate vulnerable nations and a range of non-profits, is for polluters to pay an international tax on fossil fuel extraction, which they say would also encourage the phase out of fossil fuels. An analysis by campaign group Stamp Out Poverty found this "climate damages tax" could raise $720bn (£565bn) by 2030 to help the world's poorest countries with climate damages.
Another proposal is to tax the windfall profits of fossil fuel companies that benefit from high energy prices.
However, fossil fuel taxes could only fund climate losses and damages temporarily as governments have agreed to transition away from coal, oil and gas. (Read more about what the world would look like if polluters footed the climate bill.)
Other suggestions for raising climate cash include a G20 wealth tax, a shipping emissions tax or even a frequent flier levy.
How the $100bn compares to climate damage
Climate change is already causing huge financial losses around the world. One 2023 paper found that the global costs of extreme weather attributable to climate change was an average of $143bn (£113bn) per year between 2000 and 2019. (Read more about how climate change is rewriting the rules of extreme storms).
Developing countries are often especially hard hit. While overall financial losses tend to be greater in richer countries, poorer countries see higher shares of GDP loss. These countries also suffer the most in terms of lives lost and disrupted.
Such losses are only set to get worse. A 2018 paper found that the loss and damage due to climate change in developing countries will reach $290-580bn (£228-456bn)¬¬ in 2005 money by 2030, equivalent to $468-936bn (£368-737bn) today. These damages could more than triple by 2050, it found.
Damage to farming, infrastructure, productivity and health around the world will cost $38tn (£30bn) per year by 2050, according to analysis by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. Climate change has already committed the world economy to an income reduction of 19% up to 2050, the researchers concluded. What is polluters' fair share?
One of the biggest debates over the last few years has been who is going to contribute to the new fund, says Watson. The previous $100bn goal was agreed to by 23 developed countries and the EU, and notably didn't include China, now the world's largest polluter.
Many developed countries think some of the increasingly wealthy developing nations should be contributing to the new finance goal. "[They] want to see very specific provisions for who needs to contribute," says Watson. It's worth noting that many developing countries, including China, already provide some international climate finance, but that this is currently not counted towards the climate finance goal.
There is mounting frustration among developing countries that the world's biggest emitters have not paid their fair share of climate finance to date. ODI has estimated countries' fair share, based on their historical responsibility for cumulative emissions, GDP and population.
Big emitters' failure to pay their fair share has led to "a lot of anger and frustration and a lack of trust and confidence", says Sarah Colenbrander, director of the climate and sustainability programme at ODI. The US, for example, paid just $14bn (£11bn) in climate finance in 2022, less than a third of its fair share of $45bn (£36bn). In 2021, the country provided $9bn (£7bn) of its $44bn (£35bn) fair share, according to ODI analysis.
"America just repeatedly fails to deliver," says Watson. Climate experts also now see a Trump presidency as a major setback for global climate action and a huge roadblock to raising critical funds for climate vulnerable countries.
Even without US leadership, though, debates on finance will continue to be a huge focus in Baku and future climate talks.
"In the future, all COPs will be about finance," says Dasgupta. "That is where we need to come to an agreement and where the question of justice looms largest."
Source : https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20241115-five-charts-explaining-a-trillion-dollar-climate-problem
