Author: The Kernel, and Vladislav
Introduction
UNFCCC Executive Secretary Simon Stiell emphasized during the HLMD that the NCQG is “not just numbers” but a critical mechanism to turn Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) from commitments into tangible actions. He pointed out the pressing issues of sky-high capital costs and spiraling debt crises in some countries, urging parties to identify areas of agreement to facilitate meaningful discussions at COP29 in Baku.
Amid these complex negotiations, nuclear energy remains underrepresented in climate finance discussions, despite its proven capacity to provide low-emission, reliable baseload power—a key component in achieving net-zero pathways outlined by the IPCC. This article examines the current state of NCQG negotiations, the positions of key parties, and advocates for the integration of nuclear energy into climate finance mechanisms as a practical solution to bridge existing gaps and accelerate global climate action.
Stalled Negotiations Highlight the Need for Solutions
Key contentious issues include the following.
Quantum of Finance: Countries are far from reaching an agreement on the amount of funding required and proposals range dramatically. Some parties, such as the US, advocate for figures in the billions for the core layer, acknowledging the limitations of available resources. In contrast, others, such as the African Group of Negotiators (AGN), call for mobilizing trillions annually by 2030 to support developing countries in implementing their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and National Adaptation Plans (NAPs). Observers and NGOs have gone further, suggesting that the total investment needed could exceed USD 5 trillion per year, highlighting the immense scale of the climate crisis and the financial gap that must be bridged.
Structure of the Goal: Parties are considering options ranging from simple to complex frameworks. Some propose a straightforward, single-layered goal focusing solely on public finance contributions from developed to developing countries. Others advocate for a multi-layered approach to better reflect the diverse sources and scales of climate finance. For instance, the US and the UK suggest a two-tiered structure: an outer layer representing the total global investment required from all sources—including public, private, domestic, and international finance—and an inner layer specifying the public finance commitments to support developing countries. This layered structure aims to acknowledge the vast global investment needed while setting a realistic and focused target for international public finance.
Contributor Base: Disagreements persist on who should contribute to the NCQG. Developed countries like the U.S. advocate expanding the contributor base to include nations with significant emissions and economic capabilities. In contrast, countries like China stress that developed nations should fulfill their obligations under the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement without shifting responsibilities to developing countries.
Metrics and Transparency: The lack of clear indicators and reporting mechanisms complicates efforts to track progress and build trust among parties. While some suggest utilizing existing frameworks like the Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF), consensus on methodologies and data sources remains elusive.
Despite these challenges, the HLMD served as a platform for ministers to develop a common language and overall understanding, which is a positive step forward, even though minimal.
Integrating Nuclear Energy into the NCQG
Regulatory and safety challenges also pose significant barriers. The complex regulatory environment and stringent safety requirements can delay projects and increase costs. To address this, international cooperation is essential. The NCQG should support capacity-building initiatives that help developing countries establish robust regulatory frameworks and safety standards. Organizations like the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) can provide technical assistance and share best practices, streamlining processes and enhancing safety. By harmonizing regulatory standards and facilitating the exchange of expertise, the NCQG can reduce the time and cost associated with nuclear project development.
The issue of public perception and acceptance is another hurdle. Misconceptions about nuclear safety and waste management lead to public opposition, influencing policy decisions and investor confidence. The NCQG can play a role by supporting education and outreach programs that inform policymakers and the public about the benefits and safety of nuclear energy. Transparent communication and stakeholder engagement are vital for building trust and gaining community support for nuclear projects. Advocacy organizations are actively working to dispel myths and highlight nuclear energy’s role in achieving climate goals.
Policy and legal barriers, such as national moratoriums or exclusions of nuclear energy from climate finance mechanisms, need to be reconsidered in light of current climate imperatives. The NCQG should adopt a technology-neutral approach, ensuring that all viable low-carbon technologies, including nuclear energy, are eligible for support. This aligns with the Paris Agreement’s emphasis on inclusivity and allows countries to choose the most appropriate solutions based on their specific needs and circumstances. By avoiding exclusionary language and basing criteria on emissions reduction potential, the NCQG facilitates a fair and effective allocation of resources.
Integrating nuclear energy into the NCQG also involves supporting the implementation of NDCs and NAPs that include nuclear power as a key mitigation strategy. Many developing countries have identified nuclear energy in their climate plans. Climate finance mechanisms should provide for nuclear projects by covering early-stage costs such as feasibility studies, environmental impact assessments, and the establishment of regulatory agencies critical for safe and expeditious deployment. Recognizing these preliminary expenses as eligible for funding ensures that nuclear projects can progress beyond the planning stages.
Implementing clear metrics and reporting systems is essential for transparency and accountability. Utilizing greenhouse gas emissions reductions as a primary metric allows for an accurate assessment of nuclear energy’s impact on climate goals. Integrating existing tracking systems under the Enhanced Transparency Framework, provides a holistic view of climate finance flows. Recognizing nuclear energy’s predictable, long-term emissions savings enhances the reliability of these assessments.
Furthermore, the NCQG should consider the development and climate nexus by acknowledging nuclear energy’s role in promoting sustainable development. Nuclear power provides reliable, scalable, and carbon-free electricity, which is essential for economic growth and poverty reduction in developing countries. Investing in nuclear energy fosters the development of high-skilled jobs and enhances scientific and technical expertise, supporting a just transition by building technical capacity and promoting equitable growth.
Conclusion
As we approach COP29 in Baku, it’s imperative that negotiators heed Simon Stiell’s call to turn commitments into real-world results. By addressing financial, regulatory, and perceptual barriers and adopting a technology-neutral approach, parties can unlock the potential of nuclear energy.
Generation Atomic remains committed to advocating for the inclusion of nuclear energy in climate finance mechanisms. We have been actively engaged in the NCQG negotiation process, providing inputs as an official submission to TED11 & MAHWP3, and engaging with parties and other observers. We will continue to follow the negotiations through COP29, working to ensure that nuclear energy is recognized as a key component in the global response to climate change.
You can read our position paper for TED11 & MAWHP3 here.
