The COP29 Climate Change Conference, held recently, ended with considerable controversy, leaving many wondering if real progress was made or if it simply served as another facade for wealthier nations to avoid their responsibilities toward climate change. Critiques are flying high, especially after developed countries rejected a pivotal $1 trillion proposal aimed at supporting developing nations grappled with the harsh realities of global warming. Instead, they settled on a meager $300 billion climate finance deal, which accentuated the divide between the promises made and the actions taken.
This year’s summit took place against the backdrop of numerous global climate crises, forcing the issue front and center. Nations assembled eager for solutions, but the outcome was far from the expectations of activists and representatives from nations on the frontline of climate change. They argue the deal is merely a drop in the bucket compared to what is truly needed to mitigate climate impacts.
Brandon Wu, policy director at ActionAid USA, characterized the final agreement as “a very bad deal” for developing countries. "We are barely seeing any increase at all from the previous commitment of $100 billion per year made back in 2009. And let’s not forget, the reality is these funds primarily consist of loans and private investments rather than direct aid, which is what we need to tackle this crisis effectively,” Wu pointed out.
The sentiment of frustration was echoed by many, especially as climate activists protested, demanding accountability and more aggressive funding commitments from wealthier nations. One of the more significant points raised was the concern over how private investments are measured. Wu noted, "Private investment only flows to those areas where profit is anticipated. This means those communities most affected by climate change rarely see those funds. What we need is public, grant-based funding, but this agreement fails to deliver on any real promises.”
Activists and advocates for climate justice argue this agreement does not adequately reflect the urgency of the climate catastrophe heightened by recent natural disasters and erratic weather patterns exacerbated by human activity. The call was not just for financing but for substantive measures to reduce emissions globally.
Too often, these conferences have the optics of progress without achieving satisfactory results. The UN climate summit's marathon negotiations meander from discussions to compromises but often stop short of producing the urgent, radical changes the world increasingly needs. For the Global South, their cries for immediate action remain unheeded as wealthy nations pivot away from their commitments.
The scale of disappointment was palpable, especially when considering the immediate consequences of climate change on vulnerable populations. Rising sea levels, extreme weather conditions, and food insecurity are just the tip of the iceberg for many living on the frontlines of this crisis. Nations most impacted by climate change—those least responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions contributing to it—are left scrambling for aid as their pleas go unanswered.
One poignant moment from COP29 was when activists gathered outside the conference center to voice their disapproval. They carried placards stating, “Trillions, Not Billions” urging attendees to recognize the substantial financial resources required to address climate change adequately. These protesters emphasized the gap between promises of financing and the realities they face on the ground.
For many inhabitants of the Global South, discussions at COP29 feel abstract compared to their lived experiences. They live daily with the consequences of climate change—where fears revolve around water scarcity, crop failures, and the devastating impact of natural disasters. The call for action has never been more urgent, as these individuals and communities feel the brunt of negligence from those who control the climate narrative and financing.
Rich nations, especially the U.S., continue to be under scrutiny for their role throughout these negotiations. Historically the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the United States’ lack of commitment raises significant questions about its willingness to support those who suffer most from its emissions. Wu stated, “The U.S. has stemmed its climate responsibilities over the years, performing what can be seen as a great escape from forwards actions.”
While COP29 aimed to address these issues, the tangible outcomes fall short of what many, including developing nations and grassroots organizations, deem necessary to combat climate change effectively. Critically, the meeting offered little else to be optimistic about, raising doubt about future commitments and outcomes as countries prepare to face what is expected to be another challenging year of climate events and adjustments.
The final agreement reached at COP29 is likely to be overshadowed by the growing realization of unmet promises as nations prepare for the upcoming climate talks. Looking forward to next year’s summit slated for Brazil, expectations are low—mistrust lingers, and many wonder if history will repeat itself once again.
With the climate crisis accelerating, the gap between current commitments and the required financing looms dangerously. Calls for accountability intensify alongside the urgency to implement solutions capable of addressing the realities many countries face, especially those historically least responsible for the current crisis. The stakes are undeniably high, and the time to act is less about negotiations and more about radical systemic change.
