There is extensive global media coverage of the conclusion to COP27, which concluded yesterday after a fortnight of often fraught negotiations. Reuters says that “countries closed this year’s UN climate summit on Sunday with a hard-fought deal to create a fund to help poor countries being battered by climate disasters, even as many lamented its lack of ambition in tackling the emissions causing them”. It adds: “The deal was widely lauded as a triumph for responding to the devastating impact that global warming is already having on vulnerable countries. But many countries said they felt pressured to give up on tougher commitments for limiting global warming to 1.5C in order for the landmark deal on the loss and damage fund to go through.” BBC News says the “historic deal…ends almost 30 years of waiting by nations facing huge climate impacts. But developed nations left dissatisfied over progress on cutting fossil fuels.” It continues: “This year’s talks in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, came close to collapse, and overran by two days. Luke-warm applause met the historic moment the ‘loss and damage fund’ was agreed in the early hours of Sunday, as a confusing and often chaotic 48 hours left delegates exhausted. It is, though, a huge symbolic and political statement from developed nations that long resisted a fund that covers climate impacts like flooding and drought.” The Financial Times says: “Negotiators at the COP27 summit in Egypt agreed to set up the new structure by the time of the next annual summit in 2023; contributors and recipients will be determined by a committee of countries. African and other developing world leaders were jubilant. Pakistan’s climate minister Sherry Rehman described it as ‘an investment in climate justice’. The US shifted its long-held position to seal the deal; Joe Biden’s climate envoy John Kerry said Washington was ‘pleased’ to support the new fund after it became clear there would be no legal liability. However, many of those involved in the talks expressed dismay at their failure to reach agreement on stepping up the pace of emissions cuts and a push to reduce the use of all fossil fuels after staunch resistance from countries including Saudi Arabia and Russia. Instead, the final agreement included the need for ‘low-emission’ energy — which would allow the continued production of fossil fuels when paired with carbon capture technology.” The Times describes the atmosphere as the talks wrapped: “Last night, more than 24 hours after the summit was due to finish, workmen had started dismantling the conference centre. All food outlets had closed and water and coffee were in short supply. Yet the negotiations limped on, with key disagreements unresolved among the 195 nations present. Eventually, at 4.15am, exhausted delegates agreed an historic deal…The Egyptian hosts added a last-minute call to increase not just renewables but also ‘low-emission’ energy – a shorthand for gas…The EU and the UK expressed disappointment that the final outcome did not move the world forward on commitments to cutting emissions made at last year’s historic Glasgow climate summit. ‘Our planet is still in the emergency room,’ said António Guterres, the UN secretary-general.” The Guardian quotes Mary Robinson, chair of the Elders Group of former world leaders, ex-president of Ireland and twice a UN climate envoy, who said: “The world remains on the brink of climate catastrophe. Progress made on [cutting emissions] has been too slow. We are on the cusp of a clean energy world, but only if G20 leaders live up to their responsibilities, keep their word and strengthen their will. The onus is on them.”

The majority of outlets focus on the agreement to launch a loss-and-damage fund, albeit a deal which defers all the tough decisions – who pays into it and who benefits from it – to future COPs. The Washington Post says COP27 delivered a “double-edged outcome”. It quotes European Union climate chief Frans Timmermans: “Too many parties are not ready to make more progress today in the fight against the climate crisis…What we have in front of us is not enough of a step forward for people and planet.” The New York Times says that the loss-and-damage deal “represented a breakthrough on one of the most contentious issues at United Nations climate negotiations”, adding: “The [agreement] hammered out in this Red Sea resort town makes clear that payments are not to be seen as an admission of liability. The deal calls for a committee with representatives from 24 countries to work over the next year to figure out exactly what form the fund should take, which countries and financial institutions should contribute, and where the money should go. Many of the other details are still to be determined.” Axios says the deal over setting up a new fund “exceeds expectations going into the summit…[but it] leaves most details to be filled in during subsequent rounds of fraught negotiations. For example, the text lacks targets for how much money should be provided in the climate damage fund for poor nations.” Climate Home News says “in [a[ low-energy finish, oil and gas escape censure at COP27”. It continues: “It was an anticlimactic end to a summit that secured a breakthrough on support for climate victims, yet did nothing to stop oil and gas expansion fuelling further climate chaos…India had proposed earlier in the week to extend to other fossil fuels COP26’s groundbreaking agreement to phase down coal. A broad coalition of more than 80 countries took up the call, but the Egyptian presidency refused to include it in the cover statement. Indeed, Egypt had endorsed fossil gas as ‘the perfect solution’ to the energy crisis and encouraged deals on the sidelines. Saudi Arabia and Russia strongly opposed any reference to oil and gas, sources in closed meetings reported.” Spain’s El Pais says that environment minister Theresa Ribera lamented that the overall deal was “manifestly improvable”. Le Monde in France says that COP27 “failed to sufficiently accelerate the fight against climate disruption”. Bloomberg notes that “scepticism remains” across the developing world about what the deal will actually deliver for the most vulnerable: “Rich nations have a track record of not living up to their climate promises, so for now ‘what we have is an empty bucket,’ said Mohamed Adow, executive director at think tank Power Shift Africa. ‘We need money to make it worthwhile.’”

Elsewhere, Politico focuses on the confusion about the inclusion of the wording around “low-emission energy”. It says: “The term was vague enough to cover multiple interpretations – it certainly includes nuclear power, or some forms of hydrogen. But defenders of natural gas consistently note that it produces less carbon dioxide pollution than either coal or oil – though it still contributes to baking the planet. The mention was slipped into the final version of the deal at the very last minute. Moments before delegates accepted the text, several negotiators Politico spoke to had not noticed the change. ‘Absolutely it’s gas,’ Li Shuo, a senior global policy adviser at Greenpeace East Asia, said of the new language. Others weren’t so sure. An EU official said they would absolutely not define low emissions to include natural gas.” New Scientist quotes Saleemul Huq at the Independent University, Bangladesh, who has spent decades pushing for a global loss-and-damage agreement: “This has been a demand from the most vulnerable countries for a long time and has always been blocked by the developed countries. This time all the developing countries were united under the leadership of Pakistan and managed to get the developed countries to finally agree to establish the fund for addressing loss and damage from human-induced climate change.” The Hindu notes that India “hailed” the agreement, adding that environment minister Bhupender Yadav said in the closing plenary the “world should not burden farmers with mitigation responsibilities”. The Independent focuses on political reaction in the UK: “Prime minister Rishi Sunak…said ‘more must be done’ to tackle the climate crisis, while COP26 president Alok Sharma described the target to limit global heating to 1.5C by the end of the century as being on ‘life support’…Shadow climate change secretary Ed Miliband also expressed ‘deep concern’ that the world was ‘not going fast enough’ to keep the 1.5C target alive”. The Guardian carries a news feature under the headline: “‘We couldn’t fail them’: how Pakistan’s floods spurred fight at COP for loss and damage fund.” And, finally, BBC News has published an explainer: “What is loss and damage and will rich nations pay for climate change?” Similarly, Reuters has an article under the headline: “Explainer: Who will pay for climate ‘loss and damage’?”

Several outlets list what they see as the most notable outcomes of COP27. BBC News lists five, which include the loss-and-damage fund which it wonders whether it is “the biggest win on climate since Paris?” But it also says the wording in the cover decision is “being seen as a missed opportunity in the fight against climate change”, particularly the wording over “low emission and renewable energy”, which “is being seen as a significant loophole that could allow for the development of further gas resources, as gas produces less emissions than coal”. The Guardian points to “World Bank reform” and the wording over “tipping points, the IPCC and health” as notable “key outcomes”. Reuters highlights “Brazil is back” and “US-China relationship rekindled” among its “key takeaways”. Climate Home News chooses, among others, the Bridgetown agenda, which is the effort being pushed by Barbados’ Mia Mottley to shift trillions of dollars into green and climate-resilient investments: “However, Mottley’s flagship proposal to use IMF relief, known as special drawing rights (SDRs), to fund carbon-cutting projects doesn’t feature in the text. Discussions will continue at the spring meetings of the IMF and the World Bank.” The Independent lists among its “key takeaways” the “doubling down on the doubling of adaptation finance”.

Separately, the Guardian has an article reporting “how key players reacted to end of COP27”, including Vanessa Nakate, a climate justice activist from Uganda, who said: “COP27 was meant to be the ‘African Cop’ but the needs of African people have been obstructed throughout.” BusinessGreen carries the views of various political and business leaders.

China’s state-run newspaper Global Times says that “faced with pressure from the US and other countries for China to contribute to the loss-and-damage mechanism, experts said that the onus is first and foremost on rich countries, the main contributors to historical global warming, to pay for the mechanism, and that China will not be coerced or pressured on climate issues”. The newspaper adds that Chinese scientists “praised” the deal as “historic”. Li Shuo, a senior global policy adviser at Greenpeace China, is quoted saying “under the backdrop of the ever more intense climate crisis, this agreement serves as a powerful response and a political signal to developing nations’ requests on the climate crisis, which can help alleviate the global damage from the crisis”. But Yang Fuqiang, a research fellow at Peking University’s Research Institute for Energy, is “pessimistic that the promise will translate into meaningful action by the rich countries”. He adds: “However, to show sincerity over the [climate] cooperation, Washington must abandon its previous crackdown on China’s clean energy industry, such as on photovoltaic products.”

Elsewhere, Al Jazeera writes that, while major “emerging” economies such as China “would not initially be required to contribute [to the fund], that option remains on the table and will be negotiated over the coming years”. This is a “key demand” by the European Union and the US, who argue that China and other “large polluters” currently “classified as developing countries have the financial clout and responsibility to pay their share”, the article highlights. Additionally, the Strait Times writes that the EU also “insisted” that the loss and damage fund be used to assist the most “vulnerable” countries – meaning it “could exclude China as a recipient of aid”. China’s special envoy on climate change Xie Zhenhua is quoted saying: “I hope that it could be provided to the fragile countries first. But the recipients should be developing countries. But provide it first to those who need it the most.”

Separately, Caixin Global has an article, titled: “How China’s ESG policy is progressing.” The South China Morning Post writes that green hydrogen, a “promising energy for replacing fossil-fuelled power plants”, will “need to overcome technical complexities, supply chain risks and high costs to meet global climate goals”, according to experts. Finally, Reuters reports that Russia’s energy exports to China have “increased in value by 64%” this year – and by “10% in volume – as Moscow redirects shipments” towards “friendly” nations, citing Russian deputy prime minister Alexander Novak.

The outcome of COP27 has triggered “extremely ambivalent reactions in Germany”, reports Die Welt, quoting Germany’s foreign minister Annalena Baerbock. She adds: “The result is a mix of hope and frustration.“ Baerbock says she is optimistic about the fact that “a breakthrough in climate justice” has been achieved with a loss-and-damage fund, notes the outlet. However, it quotes the Social Democrats’ Sanae Abdi saying it is “disappointing that some countries have withdrawn their commitments for climate spending and that fossil fuels have experienced a resurgence”. Baerbock is quoted by Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) complaining about a “blockade by some large emitters and oil-producing countries”. The outlet adds that German economy and climate action minister Robert Habeck said that COP27’s outcome “cannot satisfy us”. However, Habeck notes that a consistent stance on the part of the EU and “the prudent German conduct of negotiations” had at least prevented a sliding back from the decisions made in Paris and Glasgow, reports FAZ. German environment minister Steffi Lemke describes the results of COP27 as “extremely bitter”, according to Stern.

Additionally, Deutsche Welle reports that Germany’s climate envoy Jennifer Morgan, who “was visibly upset at the close of the summit”, said the only reason there was any agreement at the summit was “because we want to stand with the most vulnerable”. Elsewhere, Der Spiegel has an article detailing the roles of German negotiators at COP27. It says that “two women played the main role in this game of climate poker”, referring to Baerbock and Morgan, a former head of Greenpeace. Finally, Der Tagesspiegel reports that German climate activist Luisa Neubauer gave “a devastating testimony”, saying that “the [outcome] pits today’s climate crisis victims against tomorrow’s climate crisis victims”.

Several UK newspapers have published editorials reacting to the outcomes of COP27. The Times says that “stalemate was averted with last-minute compromises, but huge questions still remain on how money is to be spent effectively to avert climate catastrophe”. It adds: “The lack of any new promises by the 196 countries on reducing carbon emissions is deeply disappointing. There also needs to be a proper cost/benefit analysis of net zero and what the world is trying to achieve. That would include proper scrutiny of what is already being spent and why, with a more credible set of policies, properly explained to taxpayers, to meet the 2050 target. There is much to do next year [at COP28]. Otherwise, climate campaigners may resort to ever more extreme tactics.” An editorial in the Financial Times says “the two-week Egyptian COP managed to sink below even the meagre expectations held for it on the most crucial test”, adding: “A proposal led by India to agree to wind down consumption of all fossil fuels, not just coal, foundered after opposition from oil and gas producers such as Saudi Arabia and Russia. These nations undoubtedly feel emboldened to resist international pressure to cut the global use of fuels that underpin their economies.” The Guardian‘s editorial says that “this year’s milestone achievement – the new fund – is essentially a victory for civil society and collective action among developing countries”. It adds: “If, as one climate envoy suggested, it shows that ‘we can do the impossible’, it is these actors that must take the credit and that are providing true global leadership.” The Independent says “COP27 has delivered a historic agreement against the odds”. The Daily Express says “we welcome the creation of the so-called ‘loss and damage fund’…This ends several decades of agonising debate on the issue and we hope this creates some much-needed momentum in the fight to preserve our planet for generations to come.” In contrast, an editorial in the Daily Mail argues that “the creation of a ‘loss and damage’ fund, through which wealthy nations will pay poorer ones to make up for the effects of climate change, sets a dangerous and extremely divisive precedent”. It continues: “COP27 delegates were careful not to call it compensation or reparations. But that’s effectively what it is…Of course rich nations should do all they can to help poorer ones. That’s why Britain and other Western countries have generous international development programmes. But the funding should be based on need, not some spurious notion of historic guilt.”

Around the world, newspapers have been setting out their views on COP27 via their editorial pages. An editorial in the Washington Post says: “Perhaps the most important development in the climate fight last week might have occurred some 6,000 miles away from Egypt. President Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping met face-to-face at the Group of 20 conference in Bali, Indonesia, and agreed to restart stalled US-China climate talks. Among other things, this detente promises to spur work on a pact to cut emissions of methane, an extremely potent greenhouse agent.” The climate-sceptic editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal argues that the “latest shakedown is a new fund to pay poor countries for supposed damage caused by Western use of fossil fuels”. It concludes: “Climate reparations will merely serve as another form of global income redistribution. The Biden Administration’s surrender shows again that the religion of climate change is progressive penance for the sin of being prosperous.”

An editorial in the Hindu describes the new loss-and-damage fund as an “incremental win”. It adds: “During negotiations this year, the European Union pressed hard for China, the Arab states and “large, developing countries” – and this could include India – to contribute on the grounds that they were large emitters. This already opens up fresh occasion for acrimony in future COPs and given that barely a third of committed climate finance has made its way to developing countries, the L&D fund too might take years before it can meaningfully operate.” India’s Deccan Chronicle carries an editorial describes the outcome as a “victory of sorts”.

Finally, China Daily‘s editorial says: “Over the past year, the clock has been wound back by many countries, particularly the United States, as they have embraced fossil fuels more tightly, causing last year’s climate agreement to fall apart. No new pledges have been made at the latest conference. Worse, even the goal of limiting the temperature rise to 1.5 C from the pre-industrial age level by 2100, a key objective of the Paris Agreement, has been opposed by some countries. If the responses to climate change are always subject to economic, energy and geopolitical crises, any meaningful action to limit global warming will be purely theoretical. It is shameful that the US, the largest emitter among the developed economies and the second-largest in the world, has chosen to politicise the climate issue at the conference by passing the buck for the lack of progress to Russia, Europe and China.”

The Guardian’s environment editor Damian Carrington has an analysis piece in which he argues that, “when the history of the climate crisis is written, in whatever world awaits us, COP27 will be seen as the moment when the dream of keeping global heating below 1.5C died…Despite the efforts of many other countries, the final decision text duly failed to mention phasing out fossil fuels. It is extraordinary that in 30 years of UN climate negotiations, eliminating the primary cause of global heating has never been mentioned in the decisions. Given that next year’s UN climate summit will be hosted by a petrostate, the United Arab Emirates, it is hard to see how a crackdown on fossil fuels will happen there either.” Also writing in the Guardian, Bill McGuire, professor emeritus of geophysical and climate hazards at UCL, says that “these climate conferences just aren’t working”, adding: “What is needed is an apparatus that is less cumbersome and more manageable – something leaner and meaner that zeros in on the most critical aspects of the climate crisis, that does its work largely hidden from the glare of the media, and which presents a less obvious honey pot to the busy bees of the fossil fuel sector. One way forward, then, could be to establish a number of smaller bodies, each addressing one of the key issues – notably energy, agriculture, deforestation, transport, loss and damage, and perhaps others.” Pilita Clark in the Financial Times follows a similar line: “The COP jamboree desperately needs a reboot. Even many participants in these UN-sponsored events say that the meetings are no longer fit for purpose.” Nick O’Malley in the Sydney Morning Herald ask whether COP27 was a success and then has a go at answering his own question: “Well, that depends on what you care about most – raising funds for vulnerable nations or cutting emissions for a warming world. For those most concerned about the latter, there was little there and nothing to add to the Glasgow agreement signed a year ago.” The Economist has a summary of COP27 which says: “Few believe that a un-sponsored ‘loss and damage’ fund will ever transfer the hundreds of billions that would be needed to offset the damage done by climate change. That is tacitly acknowledged in the COP27 text itself, which drops several hints that money for loss and damage could be found in what Mr Timmermans [of the EU] called a ‘mosaic’ of sources in existing global, regional and national financial institutions.”

Finally, the Independent carries a joint comment piece by David Miliband, former UK foreign secretary and CEO of the International Rescue Committee, and Tony Elumelu, chairman of the United Bank for Africa. They write: “After [COP27], the impact of climate change on people, livelihoods and communities must remain front and centre. Failure to address climate inequity will result in growing economic disparities for countries in Africa.”

New research finds that rates of cliff retreat could increase by up to an order of magnitude by 2100 as a result of sea level rise. The paper uses a coastal evolution model to quantify cliff retreat rates for the past 8,000 years and forecast rates for the next century. They find that cliff retreat will be “much greater” than previously thought. The study “challenges conventional coastal management practices by revealing that even historically stable rock coasts are highly sensitive to sea-level rise and should be included in future planning for global climate change response,” the authors say.