Why Climate Finance is Not Enough: The Urgent Case for Technology and Justice

As the world prepares for the UN Climate Change Conference (COP30) in Belém, Brazil, a stark reality is coming into focus: the global commitment to a just energy transition is faltering. Despite the landmark agreement at COP29 to scale up climate finance—aiming to mobilize $1.3 trillion annually by 2035—wealthy nations are already retreating from their pledges. This display of bad faith could not come at a worse time, as the costs of climate adaptation and decarbonization for developing countries are skyrocketing.

If the Global North is unwilling to meet its financial obligations—a prospect that now seems inevitable—it must demonstrate solidarity through another, more sustainable channel: the sharing of knowledge, technology, and intellectual property (IP) that form the very bedrock of the green transition.

This is not a secondary issue that can be deferred. The shift to a green economy is alarmingly close to replicating the same asymmetries that have long defined and distorted global trade. Instead of fostering inclusive development, climate policy is increasingly being shaped by protectionist measures and restrictive IP regimes that entrench the technological monopolies of the Global North. The European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), for instance, is billed as a tool to prevent “carbon leakage,” but it also functions as a powerful trade barrier that could penalize developing nations lacking the capital for rapid decarbonization.

Furthermore, recent trade disputes, such as China’s complaint against India over its subsidies for electric vehicles and batteries, reveal how green industrial policies are becoming a new frontier for economic conflict. These tensions signal a dangerous divergence between the urgent imperatives of climate action and the existing rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO). We must ask: could the measures designed to save the planet become a new driver of economic exclusion?

The New Colonial Division of Labor

At the heart of this crisis lies a stark and familiar imbalance. While economic powerhouses like China, the US, and the EU produce high-value green technologies—from advanced battery cells to wind turbine software—most developing countries are relegated to the role of suppliers of low-value green commodities, primarily critical minerals.

This dynamic uncomfortably mirrors the colonial-era division of labor, where the Global South furnished raw materials while the Global North controlled innovation, monopolized production, and reaped the vast majority of profits.

Data from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) underscores the depth of this divide. Green patents, covering everything from renewable energy to climate adaptation, are overwhelmingly concentrated in a handful of nations. Between 2000 and 2024, the top 10 economies accounted for nearly 90% of international patent filings in solar and wind technologies. Consider Brazil: despite ranking sixth globally in installed wind capacity, it contributed a mere 0.4% of global wind patents. Its share of solar patents was an even more negligible 0.19%.

This technological concentration is not accidental. It is the deliberate outcome of a global intellectual property regime that prioritizes monopoly profits over global public goods. Efforts to foster coordination, including the WTO’s TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) agreement, have consistently failed to address this fundamental flaw.

Without access to affordable technologies, the Global South cannot truly participate in the climate transition. The current system risks locking developing nations into a new form of dependency—a “green resource curse”—where they supply the essential minerals for the world’s batteries and solar panels but are systematically prevented from building the industrial capacity to manufacture them.

Beyond Money: A Precedent for Change

Climate finance, while crucial, is insufficient to break this cycle. Pouring money into a system designed to maintain technological monopolies is like paying a ransom for one’s own chains. Instead, technology transfer and a fundamental reform of the global IP regime must be moved to the center of climate negotiations. Although the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement pay lip service to this idea, little tangible progress has been made.

Fortunately, we have a powerful precedent for the necessary changes. In the early 2000s, Brazil led a global movement that successfully categorized access to HIV/AIDS medicines as a public good, challenging the stranglehold of global pharmaceutical patents. This victory was achieved through a potent combination of legal action, political mobilization, and civil society pressure that forced the world to prioritize public health over corporate profit.

As Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz has long argued, such mechanisms are essential to correct profound market failures and ensure equitable access to life-saving innovation. This principle is now gaining traction in the climate arena. The International Court of Justice, in its recent advisory opinion on climate change, explicitly underscored the obligation of all states to cooperate—beyond the provision of finance—on the development and diffusion of green technologies, including through knowledge sharing and direct technology transfers.

The Path Forward at COP30: From Pilots to Power

The Technology Implementation Program (TIP) agreed upon at COP28 offers a concrete mechanism to foster this cooperation. Under Brazil’s leadership at COP30, this program can be transformed from a bureaucratic concept into a dynamic platform for climate justice. Its mission should be to strengthen national innovation systems globally, enabling countries to adapt technologies to local contexts and build indigenous capacity.

The model is pragmatic: use a blend of public and private capital to support pilot projects in hard-to-abate sectors and then rapidly scale those that prove effective.

Consider the production of low-carbon fertilizer. Ammonia, the key input for nitrogen fertilizers, is currently produced using hydrogen derived from fossil fuels, making the sector responsible for 1-2% of global CO2 emissions. A TIP-backed pilot could fund a facility in a country like Kenya or Bangladesh to produce ammonia using “green hydrogen” from renewable sources. This would not only drastically cut emissions but also create a scalable, locally adaptable solution that reduces dependency on imported fertilizers and enhances food security. Success in this challenging sector would provide a replicable blueprint for others.

Brazil’s COP30 presidency represents a historic opportunity to rally the Global South behind a vision of the TIP that delivers climate justice through innovation and empowerment. This is not merely a technical agenda; it is a profoundly political one.

Only by equipping all nations with the tools and knowledge to build their own green economies can we achieve a truly just transition. And in doing so, wealthy nations will discover that by enabling the rest of the world to decarbonize, they are not just acting out of solidarity—they are ultimately securing their own future on a stable and prosperous planet.

  Donate Here