Geopolitical tensions loomed large over COP29. Divisions between the Global North and South widened, as developing nations accused wealthier counterparts of reneging on moral and historical responsibilities
The COP29 climate summit in Baku, Azerbaijan, concluded with a landmark agreement committing wealthy nations to provide $300 billion annually by 2035 to help developing countries tackle the devastating impacts of climate change. While hailed as a step forward, the deal fell significantly short of the $1.3 trillion experts estimate is required, leaving many developing nations frustrated and skeptical about its effectiveness.
A Fragile Agreement Amid Intense Negotiations
The summit, extending 30 hours past its scheduled deadline, saw heated debates and walkouts by vulnerable nations, including small island states and least-developed countries. Despite the chaos, nearly 200 nations reached consensus in the early hours of Sunday.
“This new finance goal is an insurance policy for humanity,” said Simon Stiell, head of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Yet, the amount pledged remains a fraction of what economists and climate scientists deem necessary to combat worsening climate disasters.
India’s representative, Chandni Raina, sharply criticized the agreement, calling the $300 billion “a paltry sum” and accusing wealthy nations of offering “optical illusions” rather than meaningful action. The Marshall Islands’ climate envoy, Tina Stege, echoed this sentiment, condemning the influence of fossil fuel interests in blocking progress.
Activists demonstrate against a draft deal for curbing climate change at Cop29 in Baku, Azerbaijan. (Credits: AP)
The Financial Commitment: Progress or a Pipedream?
The agreement tasks developed nations with mobilizing $300 billion annually through public and private channels by 2035. This includes a broader ambition to scale up to $1.3 trillion, though specifics on how this will be achieved remain unclear.
Developing countries, represented by the G77, had pushed for $500 billion annually, with a preference for grants over loans to avoid exacerbating debt burdens. However, wealthier nations argued that higher sums were politically unfeasible given current economic pressures.
“This is the boundary between what’s politically achievable and what’s actually needed,” said Avinash Persaud, special climate advisor at the Inter-American Development Bank.
Efforts to include wealthier emerging economies like China and Saudi Arabia as contributors to the fund resulted in an alleged non-binding language. Critics, including Li Shuo of the Asia Society Policy Institute, labeled this a “flawed compromise,” reflecting the world’s increasingly fractured geopolitical landscape.
A view of an image announcing Brazil as elected host country for COP 30, at the COP29 United Nations Climate Change Conference, in Baku, Azerbaijan November 23, 2024. (Credits: REUTERS)
COP29 Overshadowed by Fossil Fuel Interests
The urgency of the talks came in a year projected to be the hottest on record, marked by devastating hurricanes, typhoons, floods, and droughts worldwide. Yet, progress was hampered by the presence of over 1,700 fossil fuel lobbyists—outnumbering most country delegations—who worked to dilute ambitious climate goals.
Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil exporter, opposed any references to phasing out fossil fuels. Public criticism mounted as the summit’s host country, Azerbaijan, a major petrostate, faced scrutiny for its ties to oil and gas.
Environmental activists protest against the continued use of fossil fuels during the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29), in Baku, Azerbaijan November 14, 2024. Credits: REUTERS
Rich Nations’ Missed Promises?
The $300 billion commitment comes against the backdrop of unfulfilled promises. In 2009, wealthy nations pledged $100 billion annually by 2020 to assist developing countries—yet this target was only met in 2022, two years late. This delayed funding deepened mistrust, as vulnerable nations continue to bear the brunt of climate disasters despite contributing the least to global emissions.
According to the World Bank, developing countries face an annual adaptation cost of $140–300 billion by 2030, escalating to $280–500 billion by 2050. Without immediate and substantial funding, these nations risk falling further into cycles of economic instability and environmental degradation. While the $300 billion pledge represents progress, critics argue it is insufficient to address the scale of the climate crisis. Harjeet Singh of the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative emphasized the need for accountability: “We must demand significant increases in financing and hold developed countries to their commitments.”
Calls for reform include ensuring that climate finance is delivered primarily as grants rather than loans, increasing contributions from emerging economies, and curbing the influence of fossil fuel lobbyists at future COPs.
Alongside, geopolitical tensions loomed large over COP29. Divisions between the Global North and South widened, as developing nations accused wealthier counterparts of reneging on moral and historical responsibilities.
“This has been one of the most contentious climate negotiations in years,” said Tasneem Essop, Executive Director of Climate Action Network. “The Global North came with a plan to betray the Global South.”
Lastly, the COP29 agreement reflects the fraught intersection of politics, economics, and environmental urgency. While it secures critical funding for vulnerable nations, the gap between promises and the scale of the crisis remains vast. As climate disasters intensify, the need for ambitious, enforceable action grows ever more urgent. Without bold commitments and greater accountability, the world risks leaving its most vulnerable populations to bear the burden of a crisis they did little to create.
