Should rich countries pay for climate damage abroad?
Loss and damage moved from taboo to fund in two years, and almost nothing has been paid. The argument is now about who qualifies, who contributes, and whether it displaces adaptation finance.
Grouped by the country the institution sits in, because where it sits shapes what it concludes. Every title links to the institution's own page; nothing is reproduced here.
United States
World Resources Institute
- Beyond the Usual Suspects: Assessing Climate Finance From the Largest Non–Annex II Economies
- The Roadmap to $1.3 Trillion in Climate Finance Will Rely on Building Coalitions
- Bottom-up Climate Finance Requirements Tracker: Data and Methodology
- Reaching $120 Billion in International Adaptation Finance Is Possible — Here’s What It Takes
Kenya
Denmark
Germany
India
Norway
South Africa
Reading the markers
A Yes, No or Both ways appears only where the title itself states a position, in a named construction we can point at — “the case for”, “the myth of”, “the trade-offs of”. Hover it to see the exact phrase.
1 of 18 titles here say that much. The rest carry no marker, because we hold titles and links rather than the articles themselves, and reading a conclusion into a headline would put a position in an institution's mouth that it may never have taken.