Content area
Rising temperatures, sea levels, and extreme weather are driving irreversible losses globally. Developed countries, under the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capacities (CBDR-RC), are obliged to provide climate finance to developing countries. Developing countries have consistently requested this finance mainly as grants. However, the definition of 'climate finance' remains disputed, perpetuating political conflict. This conflict was heightened at COP27 in 2022, when countries began negotiating loss and damage finance, broadening climate finance's scope. 'Loss and damage' refers to impacts that cannot be mitigated or adapted to, and to calls for reparations for historic climate harm. Loss and damage's emergence intensify questions about finance alignment with CBDR-RC. Climate finance governance involves numerous actors, institutions, and mechanisms. Transparency is often assumed to be a technical tool for enhancing clarity and accountability in climate governance. However, recent critical work designates transparency as a site of politics. Insurance is also often seen as a technical tool for addressing climate disasters through risk management. Here critics point to how insurance cover some risks but not others. Furthermore, digitalization is reshaping both transparency and insurance through satellite technology: 'radical transparency' links disaster modelling to parametric insurance payouts, raising questions of oversight, usage, and fairness. Using a critical constructivist lens, this thesis examines the politics of climate finance in the loss and damage era, focusing on which conceptualizations dominate and how transparency and insurance serve as political instruments. The central research question is: How are climate finance politics changing in the international climate regime and what are the implications for addressing loss and damage? Sub-questions include: 1) How are climate finance conceptualizations changing within the UNFCCC? 2) How are radical transparency and parametric insurance, as political instruments, affecting loss and damage financing? Chapter 1 establishes the analytical lens and identifies relevant knowledge gaps. Chapter 2 analyzes climate finance conceptualizations through UNFCCC transparency arrangements, revealing that rather than achieving clarity, transparency facilitates open-ended conceptualizations largely serving developed countries' interests. Chapter 3 examines loss and damage finance negotiations between COP27 and COP28, focusing on disagreements over insurance suitability. It demonstrates growing normalization of insurance as a loss and damage instrument, advanced primarily by developed countries. Chapter 4 analyzes satellite-enabled radical transparency entanglement with parametric insurance technology, finding this changes climate risk governance and understanding, often reducing on-the-ground complexities to vulnerable populations' detriment. Chapter 5 interrogates digitalization's broader effects on climate and environmental governance. Key insights emphasize attention to political and normative contexts in which digital technologies are proposed, designed, and used. Chapter 6 synthesizes findings and draws three major conclusions. Climate finance has shifted from meaning mainly grant-based transfers to also include financial instruments such as insurance, weakening CBDR-RC. Transparency’s entanglement with insurance present disasters as isolated technical events, obscuring political-economic contexts. Authority over how disaster finance is spent has gradually moved from affected countries to algorithms and external actors, creating an "insurance imaginary for loss and damage" that depoliticizes responsibility for climate change.