Parishay Fatima
At the COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan, developed countries committed to increasing funding to help poorer nations tackle climate change, promising up to $300 billion annually by 2035. However, this pledge, while historic, has faced harsh criticism from the developing world for being insufficient to address the urgent scale of the climate crisis.
Despite running 33 hours over schedule and coming close to collapse, the agreement at COP29 fell far short of the $1.3 trillion that developing countries had advocated for. This has led to discontent, particularly from African nations, with the African Group of Negotiators calling the commitment “too little, too late.” India’s representative expressed frustration, labeling the funds as “a paltry sum” given the scale of the challenges at hand.
The deal’s promise of additional funds is, in part, a recognition that poorer countries bear the brunt of climate change impacts despite contributing little to its causes. The head of the UN climate body, Simon Stiell, acknowledged the deal’s flaws, stating that “no country got everything they wanted” and emphasizing that significant work remains. In addition to the $300 billion, the agreement outlines efforts to raise $1.3 trillion annually from both public and private sources by 2035, signaling some progress but falling far behind the demands of vulnerable nations.
The pledged funds are expected to support the transition of poorer countries from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. There is also a focus on increasing climate adaptation funding, with a goal to triple investments in preparing countries for climate-related disasters. Historically, however, only a small portion—40%—of the available funds have been dedicated to these adaptation efforts, a gap that the deal aims to address.
The 2023 climate talks occurred during what is now “virtually certain” to be the warmest year on record, underscoring the urgency of the issue. The record-breaking heatwaves and deadly storms have highlighted the severity of the crisis and the need for swift, significant action. Yet, despite the urgency, the outcome of COP29 reflects a compromise between donor nations and the most vulnerable countries, leaving many feeling dissatisfied with the results.
A major point of contention was the role of fossil fuels. Developed nations, including the UK and EU, sought stronger commitments to reduce fossil fuel use, but countries dependent on oil and gas, such as those in the Arab Group, strongly resisted any binding language that targeted specific sectors. Saudi Arabia, in particular, made it clear that it would not accept any deal that specifically targeted fossil fuel industries.
The prolonged negotiations at COP29 reflect the increasingly difficult geopolitical environment in which climate negotiations are taking place. As countries like the US under President Trump step back from climate leadership, it is becoming harder to meet global climate goals. The UK, for example, announced that the new pledge did not require it to contribute additional funds, but instead framed it as an opportunity for British businesses to invest in global markets.
The controversial choice of Azerbaijan as the host nation also raised eyebrows, particularly due to the country’s plans to expand its gas production in the coming years. Looking ahead, many see Brazil as a more suitable host for COP30, given President Lula’s strong climate commitments, particularly in fighting deforestation in the Amazon rainforest.
In conclusion, while the deal reached at COP29 marks a step forward in climate funding, it falls short of the expectations of developing nations who are facing the harshest consequences of climate change. With ongoing challenges in balancing the interests of donor and vulnerable nations, the road ahead remains fraught with difficulties in addressing the urgent climate crisis.
