Countries gathered at the COP29 summit held recently in Baku, Azerbaijan, arrived at a significant agreement aimed at addressing climate change, albeit one shrouded in controversy. This pact, reached after lengthy negotiations, sets forth a target of $300 billion per year by 2035, intended to assist developing nations as they grapple with the impacts of climate change. Despite the intention behind the agreement, it has faced fierce backlash from the very nations it aims to support, with many viewing it as grossly inadequate.
Among those voicing discontent was Indian delegate Chandni Raina, who lamented, "I regret to say this document is nothing more than an optical illusion. It will not address the enormity of the challenge we all face. Therefore, we oppose the adoption of this document." Such sentiments echo the frustrations of many negotiators from developing countries who have long argued for more substantial financial commitments from wealthier nations, historically the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions.
Originally intended to provide momentum for the global fight against climate change, the agreement has been critiqued as insufficient, especially against the backdrop of 2024 anticipated to become the hottest year on record. According to scientists, the world is on track for as much as 3.1 degrees Celsius of warming by the century's end if substantive measures are not taken to cut emissions significantly. This stark reality was compounded by the fact the recent negotiations were protracted and heated, running much longer than originally planned as negotiators battled over the commitment details.
The deal’s agreement was expected not only to set new financial commitments but also to encourage private companies and institutions like the World Bank to contribute to the nearly $1 trillion needed each year to fund energy transitions and climate resilience projects in developing nations. Yet, for many, this arrangement felt more like pushing responsibilities off on others rather than genuine commitment from richer countries. The existing funding gap emphasizes the disparity between what is needed and what has been promised.
On the political front, the backdrop of Donald Trump’s recent election victory added new layers of uncertainty to the negotiations. With Trump expected to reverse any commitments related to climate finance made by the outgoing Biden administration, many negotiators expressed doubts about the future of funding from the United States, historically one of the largest contributors to global carbon emissions. Trump's previous dismissal of climate change as mere exaggeration has raised alarms about America's role moving forward.
Ahead of the COP29, Trump's chosen cabinet included individuals known for their climate change skepticism, leading to calls for developing nations to be cautious and prepared for potential funding shortages. Compounding the situation is the fact many wealthy nations have increasingly put climate agendas on the back burner, focusing instead on pressing geopolitical tensions and economic constraints.
Despite these challenges, some praised the agreement as a necessary step forward, if not the ultimate solution. UN climate chief Simon Stiell referred to the deal as "an insurance policy for humanity against global warming," but underscored the significance of timely execution: "This deal will keep the clean energy boom growing and protect billions of lives, but it only works if the premiums are paid. Too many have pledged, yet too few have delivered."
Concerns have emerged over whether this commitment will materialize, as previous targets set under earlier climate accords faced delays, including the promise made at the last COP summit to deliver $100 billion by 2020, which was not met until 2022.
Delegates have also voiced frustration about the way negotiations unfolded throughout the summit, with some accusing host Azerbaijan of rushing discussions and undermining the importance of financial accountability. Particularly sensitive was the debate surrounding who bears the financial burden of climate adaptation and mitigation efforts. The stark reality laid bare the divisions between countries clinging to the hope of financial support and those dealing with the immediate effects of climate change like floods, droughts, and devastating storms.
Alongside these discussions, the climate summit saw protests from various activist groups and public outcry demanding more concrete commitments from developed countries. They argued the strategy of only tripling financial efforts is grossly insufficient. Climate envoy Tina Stege from the Marshall Islands expressed, "We are leaving with just a small portion of the funding climate-vulnerable countries urgently need. It isn’t nearly enough, but it’s a start." An increasing number of scientists and environmental advocates are moving toward declaring imminent climate action non-negotiable. While the COP29 deal is seen as progress by some, for many developing nations, it just reinforces their struggle to voice their needs against the backdrops of geopolitical interests and economic challenges.
Experts noted for the summit's success is the urgent need for wealthier nations to do more to meet the Paris Agreement goals, particularly reducing emissions to curb global temperature rise to below 1.5 degrees Celsius. Unless substantial steps are taken by all parties, the climate crisis will continue unabated, leaving vulnerable nations at greater risk from the ravaging effects of climate change.
