The world gathered once again under the banner of climate urgency as the COP29 climate negotiations unfolded this November in Baku, Azerbaijan. The stakes were high, with countries across the globe vying to address the ever-worsening climate crisis. But when the dust finally settled, the outcome left many feeling disappointed, particularly among developing nations.
The primary focus of COP29 was climate finance, with developing countries demanding significantly more than the paltry sum of $300 billion annually proposed by wealthy nations. This demand was against the backdrop of promises made during previous summits to mobilize funds to help with climate mitigation and adaptation.
Global South representatives had initially pushed for $1.3 trillion per year, arguing it was necessary to cover just the basics of combating and adapting to climate change. Instead, after over 30 hours of tense negotiations past the scheduled end, they were left with the $300 billion figure, which many argued barely addressed increasing needs but rather kicked the can down the road.
The COP29 president, Mukhtar Babayev, acknowledged the deal was insufficient, labeling it "imperfect." He pointed fingers at wealthier nations, indicating their unwillingness to contribute more, and calling it insulting to the developing countries most vulnerable to climate impacts.
Representatives from these nations voiced their frustration, with some labeling the deal as a "slap in the face." Critics pointed out not just the monetary shortfall but also the poor terms attached to the pledged support—it was largely couched as loans rather than grants. This arrangement would burden developing nations with debt rather than genuinely assist them.
Building on the previous pledges from COP15, where $100 billion was promised by developed countries to support developing nations, this latest agreement felt like déjà vu. The initial target had not been met, with reports indicating only $83 billion mobilized by 2020 and slight progress thereafter. Now, with this new pledge of $300 billion, Indian officials responded with outrage, calling it “a joke,” especially since India's own needs soared to approximately $2.5 trillion by 2030 for effective climate action. For India, the stakes were not only about financial assistance but also about tackling the dual challenges of fossil fuel reliance and renewable energy transition. Half of India’s electricity still relies on coal—an issue both politically charged and economically sensitive as the country maneuvers toward its climate aspirations and global expectations.
Skepticism lingered about the efficacy of the new climate finance goal, especially when many developing nations, such as India, viewed these offerings as insufficient to tackle their increasing climate vulnerabilities. The funding, they claimed, needed to be directed toward two key areas: adaptation—helping manage and prepare for climate impacts like floods and droughts, and mitigation—investing heavily in renewable energy sources and infrastructure.
Surprisingly, China, classified alongside other developing nations, announced its fiscal support for climate change efforts at $24.5 billion since 2016. Though this was significant, the expectation of being recognized as both a donor and recipient of climate finance created tension. Analysts argued it underscored the outdated classifications of countries as developed or developing since the situation has drastically changed over the years.
While debates on finance were heated, discussions around carbon markets and the phase-out of fossil fuels also sparked contention. Many experts, backed by developed nations, argued for urgent commitments to phase out fossil fuels altogether. They stressed the dire consequences of continued fossil fuel reliance if the global community seriously intends to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Yet, countries like Saudi Arabia resisted, preferring to limit the conversation to phasing down fossil fuels over outright bans. This strategic behavior was widely criticized, with allegations of edited negotiation texts scandalizing the integrity of discussions.
Despite the push for strong commitments, the COP29 ended without binding agreements on either phasing out or phasing down fossil fuels. Instead, the climate finance discussions became the centerpiece of the conference, absorbing the bulk of focus and energy. Yet the lack of decisive commitments meant developing nations left the summit once again feeling let down.
Looking to the future, the upcoming COP30 meeting will need to address these pressing matters more directly. Climate justice advocates point out the need for substantial reforms to the way climate finance is structured, especially emphasizing grants over loans to alleviate the burden on developing nations.
Beyond finances, the discussions surrounding adaptation strategies must evolve. Defining concrete goals for national adaptation plans and integrating loss and damage financing elements without barriers will be key. The reality check at COP29 revealed the interim success was just barely meeting the rising expectations of vulnerable nations, but the global community is urged to strive for outcomes more closely aligned with the real challenges of climate change.
While COP29 may be over, the dialogues it sparked will be pivotal as nations aim to collaborate effectively to combat the climate crisis. The collective voices of those demanding accountability and growth will echo past the borders of Baku, challenging current notions of development, responsibility, and action.
