At the COP29 climate summit in Baku, a landmark deal was struck, with countries agreeing to raise $300 billion annually by 2035 to support poorer nations in tackling climate change. However, the agreement has faced strong criticism from developing nations, who argue that the pledged amount is far too insufficient to address the mounting climate crisis.
The agreement, which was finalized after extended negotiations, is seen as a step towards bolstering international efforts to combat global warming, a year that is expected to break temperature records. While some delegates applauded the deal, others, particularly from poorer countries, voiced their frustration with the lack of meaningful financial support. Indian delegate Chandni Raina labeled the deal an “optical illusion,” stressing that it falls short of the scale needed to address the challenges posed by climate change.
UN climate chief Simon Stiell defended the deal, calling it “an insurance policy” for humanity, though he acknowledged the difficult path to securing the agreement. He emphasized that the success of the deal would depend on timely and full payments from the wealthy nations.
The agreement builds on a previous commitment by wealthy nations to provide $100 billion per year for climate finance, a target that was met two years late and is set to expire in 2025. While the new deal pushes this figure to $300 billion per year by 2035, many climate-vulnerable nations are still disappointed with the modest increase in funding, especially in light of the growing damage from climate-related disasters.
The summit also highlighted the divisions between industrialized nations, responsible for the bulk of historical emissions, and developing nations, which are bearing the brunt of the climate crisis. Despite efforts to expand the financial pool to $1.3 trillion annually by 2035, the deal does not specify concrete steps to reduce fossil fuel use or achieve the ambitious renewable energy goals set at previous summits.
The negotiations were complicated by the presence of powerful oil-exporting nations like Saudi Arabia, which reportedly resisted stronger commitments on fossil fuel reductions. The agreement does include plans for a global carbon credit market, which advocates believe could unlock additional funds for climate action, though critics worry it may fall short in the face of urgent climate impacts.
The deal’s passage follows a tense period of global political uncertainty, particularly in the wake of the election of climate skeptic Donald Trump as the next US president. Despite these challenges, US President Joe Biden hailed the agreement as a step forward, while acknowledging that more work is needed to meet global climate goals.
In conclusion, while the $300 billion target represents progress, the dissatisfaction among many countries underscores the broader challenge of balancing the financial demands of climate action with the political and economic constraints faced by wealthier nations. With global temperatures on track to rise significantly, the urgency for more substantial and immediate action remains a critical concern.
