TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search results
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search resultsWhy climate finance is not enough
If the Global North is no longer willing to meet its funding promises, it can still demonstrate good faith through another form of solidarity: sharing the knowledge, technology and intellectual property that underpin the green transition.
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
Oxfam activists wearing oversized masks representing (from left to right) European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen, South Africa's President Cyril Ramaphosa, Argentina's President Javier Milei, United States President Donald Trump and Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney pose during their “Big Heads“ protest stunt at the riverbank of the Federal University of Para in Belem, Brazil, on Nov. 5, 2025 on the sidelines of the COP30 United Nations Climate Summit. (AFP/Mauro Pimentel)
W
ith the United Nations Climate Conference (COP30) in Belém, Brazil, ongoing, it is clear that the world’s widely shared commitment to a just energy transition is falling by the wayside. In the year since governments signed on to the agreement at COP29 to scale up climate finance, with a goal of mobilizing US$1.3 trillion annually by 2035, wealthy countries have been retreating from their financial pledges. Worse, these signs of bad faith are coming just as the costs of climate adaptation and decarbonization in developing countries are mounting.
If the Global North is no longer willing to meet its funding promises, as now seems certain, it can still demonstrate good faith, nonetheless, through another form of solidarity: sharing the knowledge, technology and intellectual property (IP) that underpin the green transition.
This is not an issue that can be deferred. The shift to a green economy is already reproducing the same asymmetries that have long defined global trade. Instead of fostering inclusive development, climate policy is increasingly being shaped by protectionist measures and IP regimes that entrench technological monopolies in the Global North. For example, the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism may be billed as a safeguard against carbon leakage; but it also illustrates how climate policy can be used to justify protectionist trade measures.
Moreover, China’s recent complaint against India for its electric vehicle and battery subsidies shows how green industrial policies are increasingly becoming grounds for trade disputes. Together, these developments signal a growing tension between climate goals and World Trade Organization rules. Could measures to address climate change soon become a new impetus for economic exclusion?
At the heart of this issue lies a stark imbalance: larger powers like China, the United States and the EU are producing high-value green technologies, while most developing countries are stuck exporting low-value green commodities, primarily critical minerals. This mirrors the colonial-era division of labor, whereby the Global South supplied raw materials, and the North supplied innovation, monopolized production and reaped the largest profits.
Data from the World Intellectual Property Organization underscore the depth of this divide. Green patents (relating to renewable energy, energy efficiency and climate adaptation) are overwhelmingly concentrated in a handful of countries, such as China, the US, Japan and Germany. Between 2000 and 2024, the top 10 economies accounted for nearly 90 percent of international patent filings in solar and wind technologies. Brazil, despite ranking sixth globally in installed wind capacity, contributed only 0.4 percent of global wind patents. For solar, its share was a mere 0.19 percent.
This technological concentration is not accidental. It is the result of a global IP regime that privileges monopoly profits over public goods. Efforts to foster more global coordination, including through the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement, have failed to address the fundamental problem.
