Activists demonstrate in silence protesting a draft of a proposed deal for curbing climate change at the COP29 U.N. Climate Summit, Friday, Nov. 22, 2024, in Baku, Azerbaijan. File
| Photo Credit: AP

The world approved a bitterly negotiated climate deal Sunday (November 24, 2024) but poorer nations most at the mercy of worsening disasters dismissed a $300 billion a year pledge from wealthy historic polluters as insultingly low.

After two exhausting weeks of chaotic bargaining and sleepless nights, nearly 200 nations banged through the contentious finance pact in the early hours in a sports stadium in Azerbaijan.

But the applause had barely subsided when India delivered a full-throated rejection of the “abysmally poor” dollar-figure just agreed.

“It’s a paltry sum,” thundered India’s delegate Chandni Raina.

“This document is little more than an optical illusion. This, in our opinion, will not address the enormity of the challenge we all face.”

Sierra Leone’s climate minister Jiwoh Abdulai, whose country is among the world’s poorest, said it showed a “lack of goodwill” by developed nations, whose ranks include the United States, Japan and members of the European Union.

“We are extremely disappointed in the outcome,” he said.

Tina Stege, climate envoy for the Marshall Islands, a small atoll nation threatened by rising seas, said she would return home with a “small portion” of what she fought for.

“It isn’t nearly enough, but it’s a start,” she said.

The Alliance of Small Island States, the Least Developed Countries and the African Group of Negotiators — all influential developing nation blocs — expressed disappointment with the deal.

A number of countries had accused Azerbaijan, an oil and gas exporter, of lacking the experience and will to meet the moment, as the planet again sets temperature records and faces rising deadly disasters.

Nations had struggled to reconcile long-standing divisions over how much rich nations most accountable for historic climate change should provide to poorer countries least responsible but most impacted by Earth’s rapid warming.

Many developing countries had pushed for at least $500 billion, but developed nations under political and fiscal pressure had played down such expectations.

UN climate chief Simon Stiell acknowledged the deal was imperfect and said “no country got everything they wanted” in the Caspian Sea city of Baku.

“This is no time for victory laps,” he said.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said he had “hoped for a more ambitious outcome” and appealed to Governments to see it as a base to build upon.

Developed countries only put the $300 billion figure on the table on Saturday after a sleepless night of shuttle diplomacy to improve an earlier spurned offer.

Bleary-eyed diplomats, huddled in anxious groups, were still revising the final phrasing on the plenary floor in the final hours before the deal passed.

UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband hailed “a critical eleventh hour deal at the eleventh hour for the climate”.

At points, the talks appeared on the brink of collapse, with developing nations storming out of meetings and threatening to walk away should rich nations not cough up more cash.

In the end — despite repeating that no deal is better than a bad deal — they did not stand in the way of an agreement.

EU climate envoy Wopke Hoekstra said COP29 would be remembered as “the start of a new era for climate finance”.

The final deal commits developed nations to pay at least $300 billion a year by 2035 to help developing countries green their economies and prepare for worse disasters.

That is up from $100 billion under an existing pledge but was slammed as a mockery by developing nations that had demanded much more.

“This COP has been a disaster for the developing world,” said Mohamed Adow, the Kenyan director of Power Shift Africa, a think tank.

“It’s a betrayal of both people and planet, by wealthy countries who claim to take climate change seriously.”

Experts commissioned by the United Nations concluded that developed countries should be providing at least $390 billion by 2035 to meet the needs of developing countries excluding China.

The United States and EU have wanted newly wealthy emerging economies like China — the world’s largest emitter — to chip in.

The final deal “encourages” developing countries to make contributions on a voluntary basis, reflecting no change for China which already provides climate finance on its own terms.

Wealthy nations said it was politically unrealistic to expect more in direct Government funding.

Donald Trump, a sceptic of both climate change and foreign assistance, returns to the White House in January and a number of other Western countries have seen right-wing backlashes against the green agenda.

The deal posits a larger overall target of $1.3 trillion per year to cope with rising temperatures and disasters, but most would come from private sources.

Activists demonstrate in silence protesting a draft of a proposed deal for curbing climate change at the COP29 U.N. Climate Summit, Friday, Nov. 22, 2024, in Baku, Azerbaijan. File
| Photo Credit: AP

The world approved a bitterly negotiated climate deal Sunday (November 24, 2024) but poorer nations most at the mercy of worsening disasters dismissed a $300 billion a year pledge from wealthy historic polluters as insultingly low.

After two exhausting weeks of chaotic bargaining and sleepless nights, nearly 200 nations banged through the contentious finance pact in the early hours in a sports stadium in Azerbaijan.

But the applause had barely subsided when India delivered a full-throated rejection of the “abysmally poor” dollar-figure just agreed.

“It’s a paltry sum,” thundered India’s delegate Chandni Raina.

“This document is little more than an optical illusion. This, in our opinion, will not address the enormity of the challenge we all face.”

Sierra Leone’s climate minister Jiwoh Abdulai, whose country is among the world’s poorest, said it showed a “lack of goodwill” by developed nations, whose ranks include the United States, Japan and members of the European Union.

“We are extremely disappointed in the outcome,” he said.

Tina Stege, climate envoy for the Marshall Islands, a small atoll nation threatened by rising seas, said she would return home with a “small portion” of what she fought for.

“It isn’t nearly enough, but it’s a start,” she said.

The Alliance of Small Island States, the Least Developed Countries and the African Group of Negotiators — all influential developing nation blocs — expressed disappointment with the deal.

A number of countries had accused Azerbaijan, an oil and gas exporter, of lacking the experience and will to meet the moment, as the planet again sets temperature records and faces rising deadly disasters.

Nations had struggled to reconcile long-standing divisions over how much rich nations most accountable for historic climate change should provide to poorer countries least responsible but most impacted by Earth’s rapid warming.

Many developing countries had pushed for at least $500 billion, but developed nations under political and fiscal pressure had played down such expectations.

UN climate chief Simon Stiell acknowledged the deal was imperfect and said “no country got everything they wanted” in the Caspian Sea city of Baku.

“This is no time for victory laps,” he said.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said he had “hoped for a more ambitious outcome” and appealed to Governments to see it as a base to build upon.

Developed countries only put the $300 billion figure on the table on Saturday after a sleepless night of shuttle diplomacy to improve an earlier spurned offer.

Bleary-eyed diplomats, huddled in anxious groups, were still revising the final phrasing on the plenary floor in the final hours before the deal passed.

UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband hailed “a critical eleventh hour deal at the eleventh hour for the climate”.

At points, the talks appeared on the brink of collapse, with developing nations storming out of meetings and threatening to walk away should rich nations not cough up more cash.

In the end — despite repeating that no deal is better than a bad deal — they did not stand in the way of an agreement.

EU climate envoy Wopke Hoekstra said COP29 would be remembered as “the start of a new era for climate finance”.

The final deal commits developed nations to pay at least $300 billion a year by 2035 to help developing countries green their economies and prepare for worse disasters.

That is up from $100 billion under an existing pledge but was slammed as a mockery by developing nations that had demanded much more.

“This COP has been a disaster for the developing world,” said Mohamed Adow, the Kenyan director of Power Shift Africa, a think tank.

“It’s a betrayal of both people and planet, by wealthy countries who claim to take climate change seriously.”

Experts commissioned by the United Nations concluded that developed countries should be providing at least $390 billion by 2035 to meet the needs of developing countries excluding China.

The United States and EU have wanted newly wealthy emerging economies like China — the world’s largest emitter — to chip in.

The final deal “encourages” developing countries to make contributions on a voluntary basis, reflecting no change for China which already provides climate finance on its own terms.

Wealthy nations said it was politically unrealistic to expect more in direct Government funding.

Donald Trump, a sceptic of both climate change and foreign assistance, returns to the White House in January and a number of other Western countries have seen right-wing backlashes against the green agenda.

The deal posits a larger overall target of $1.3 trillion per year to cope with rising temperatures and disasters, but most would come from private sources.

People hold placards during a protest against the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29) in Baku, in London, Britain, November 16, 2024.
| Photo Credit: Reuters

The first week of the COP29 summit concluded in Baku without significant breakthroughs, as deep divisions between developed and developing nations stalled progress on key issues like climate finance, trade measures, and equitable responsibility for climate action.

India, representing the G-77/China and BASIC blocs, demanded accountability from wealthier countries on unmet financial commitments.

The G-77/China bloc reiterated the call for $1.3 trillion annually in climate finance, with an emphasis on grants and concessional funding to avoid burdening vulnerable economies already grappling with the impacts of climate change.   “Loans make up nearly 70% of climate finance provided so far. This is unacceptable and places undue pressure on developing economies,” an Indian negotiator had asserted, urging developed nations to move away from debt-inducing mechanisms.

UN Executive Secretary Simon Stiell added to the urgency, urging G20 countries to take bolder action, warning that without it, no economy in the grouping would be spared from climate-driven economic losses.

However, his call for solidarity failed to resolve the deadlock.

Cosima Castle, of E3G’s climate diplomacy team, acknowledged the challenges posed by geopolitical tensions but underscored the potential of the upcoming G20 Leaders’ Summit in Rio de Janeiro.

E3G is an engineering and environmental consulting firm.

“We’re seeing strains everywhere, from the Middle East to Africa to Ukraine, yet there’s collective resolve among many nations to work toward a deal,” she said.

Castle pointed out that the G20 countries, responsible for 80% of global emissions and 85% of the world economy, hold the key to unlocking ambitious climate agreements.

The contentious issue of the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) also fuelled sharp exchanges.

India and other developing nations criticised the measure for disproportionately penalising their economies, calling it a violation of equity principles and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

“CBAM shifts the responsibility of climate action onto nations with minimal historical emissions, undermining industrial growth in the developing world,” warned a negotiator from Bolivia, echoing India’s concerns. Technology transfer emerged as another unresolved issue.

Developing nations demanded a robust technology implementation programme supported by dedicated financial backing.

“Without equitable access to climate technologies, the promises of the Paris Agreement will remain unfulfilled,” an Indian negotiator stated.  India also opposed any attempts to impose external regulations on its climate targets, emphasising that mitigation efforts should align with Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and national sovereignty.

The BASIC bloc criticised developed nations for attempting to dilute their commitments under the Paris Agreement by shifting additional obligations onto emerging economies. The BASIC countries include Brazil, South Africa, India, and China.

The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and the Arab Group joined forces with India, highlighting the disproportionate impact of climate change on vulnerable populations and demanding scaled-up financial and technological support.   The negotiations in Baku have also highlighted the urgent need for a comprehensive climate finance package that addresses both mitigation and adaptation.

“The costs of inaction are far greater than the costs of action,” Castle warned, adding that countries must come together not only for climate action but also for long-term economic stability.

South Africa, which will assume the G20 presidency in 2025, is expected to play a crucial role in bridging the gap between developed and developing countries.

Gillian Hamilton, a civil society leader from South Africa, emphasised the country’s commitment to debt relief and reforms in multilateral financial systems.

“South Africa has been closely working with the African Union to reflect the priorities of the Global South, focusing on equity and solidarity,” she said, adding that the country’s leadership would build on themes introduced by Brazil and India.

The lack of progress on key fronts, including the long-standing $100 billion annual climate finance pledge, left developing nations increasingly frustrated.

As negotiators prepare for the second week, the stalemate casts uncertainty over whether COP29 will deliver actionable outcomes.

With COP30 in Brazil next year, the outcomes in Baku are likely to set the tone for the global climate agenda in the months to come. 

Environmental activists protest during the United Nations climate change conference COP29, in Baku, Azerbaijan November 15, 2024.
| Photo Credit: Reuters

In the nosebleed seats of a nearly-empty Baku Olympic stadium coated with a layer of dust, activists used a giant banner to beam the words “Pay Up” to the world.

The protest took weeks of thought and planning, but most of the attendees at this year’s U.N. climate talks didn’t see or hear it — except for maybe some in the COP29 presidency offices right below. The majority of the people involved in deciding the financial future of climate action at the talks remained in the sprawling venue, under white tarps with no windows.

Chants restricted

It’s “really hard to make our demands heard,” said Bianca Castro, a climate activist from Portugal. She’s been to several COPs in the past and remembers years when there were thousands of protestors in the streets, and a multitude of strikes and actions throughout the event. But at the stadium’s seats, they were told exactly where and when they could stand and chants were restricted. A United Nations climate change spokesperson said that the action was in a part of the venue that isn’t open to participants, and involved extensive dialogue among the participants, facility managers and health and safety officers.

Still, Ms. Castro said the difficulty of making an impact meant many are “losing hope in the in the process.”

People involved in protests say they have felt a trend in recent years of stricter rules from the United Nations organizers with COPs being held in countries whose governments limit demonstrations and the participation of civil society. And some community spaces for prepping and organizing have had to resort to going underground because of security concerns. But the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change — who run the COPs — say the code of conduct that governs the conferences has not changed, nor has the way it’s applied, and COP29 organizers say there’s space across the venue for participants to “make their voices heard in line with the UNFCCC code of conduct and Azerbaijan law safely and without interference.”

Voices from the Global South

Despite the challenges and what some see as a depressing mood, activists say it remains a critical time to speak up about the historical and present-day injustices that are in desperate need of money and attention.

It’s especially true this year at a COP where the theme is finance, because voices from the Global South play a pivotal role in bringing ambitious demands to the negotiating table, said Rachitaa Gupta, who coordinates a global network of organizations advocating for climate justice. But she said that there have been more and more defamation rules each year that prohibit protestors from calling out specific countries or names.

“We do feel that the restrictions have reached a stage where it’s a constant battle on what we can say,” Gupta said. Activists can’t name specific countries, people or businesses in line with the UNFCCC’s code of conduct.

Protest in Baku

Meanwhile, across town in a downtown Baku building, activists paint, snip fabric and sculpt with cardboard and papier-mache in a quest for visually compelling symbols of climate action. The art space was once a place of community, where people came to pour their feelings into a creative outlet, said Amalen Sathananthar, coordinator at a collective called the Artivist Network. But now his team keeps the art space private and doesn’t reveal its location because of security concerns.

Restrictions, though, can breed creativity among the artists designing the banners, flags and props that demonstrators use during protests. In the absence of naming specific people or countries, or carrying country flags, they instead have to come up with other imagery to get their messages across.

One of this year’s pieces was a larger-than-life snake for an action with the slogan “Weed Out the Snakes,” calling attention for the removal of big polluters and fossil fuel lobbyists at climate talks, something that’s been “outrageous,” said Jax Bongon, whose organization is part of the Kick Big Polluters Out coalition. “Would you invite an arsonist to put out the fire?”

It’s an issue that’s “particularly hard for me as someone from the Philippines,” Bongon added, but called it “really uplifting” to watch the action come together despite challenges.

Demonstrators hoisted the fire-colored serpent with on their shoulders and heads. Together, their hisses filled the tent, bringing the snake to life.

“I think that the only reason people dare to do this is because, one, they’re struggling on how to be heard,” said Dani Rupa, one of the artists working in Baku with The Artivist Network. “But, two, that there is like creative support for them to be able to do this.”

The Artivist Network have been doing this for a long time, attending COPs unofficially since the early 2000s and officially since they formalized in 2018. Sathananthar’s seen the multitude of ways protestors have had to argue with host countries and the UNFCCC governing body to get space for activism. But this year, especially, he said it’s a struggle — “negotiations within negotiations” that have had Sathananthar staying up late into the night in talks and on occasion have left him “fuming.”

A spokesperson for UNFCCC said they’ve “been a recognized global leader in ensuring safe civic spaces at COPs for many years” which normally doesn’t happen at other intergovernmental events.

Still, activists feel that only being able to protest within certain areas throughout the venue — when previous years have seen mass street marches in host cities — can be frustrating.

“Every action you now have to fight for desperately,” Sathananthar said. “We fought to get these spaces and we will fight to keep them.”

People pose near a sign outside the venue for the COP29 U.N. Climate Summit, Sunday, Nov. 10, 2024, in Baku, Azerbaijan.
| Photo Credit: AP

COP29, termed the “climate finance COP,” has one major objective: establishing a concrete financial commitment from developed countries to support climate action in developing nations. As the United Nations climate talks begin in Baku, the primary debate centers on who will provide funding and, more crucially, how much is needed.

Developing nations face mounting expenses due to climate-driven issues like extreme heat, floods, droughts, and storms, costs they cannot bear alone. Experts and numerous reports estimate that addressing these issues will require trillions of dollars. The financing in question covers three key areas: aiding the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy, supporting adaptation to climate impacts, and compensating vulnerable nations for climate-related damages.

However, discussions are likely to be tense following the re-election of former U.S. President Donald Trump, a vocal climate change skeptic whose campaign pledged a second withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.

While the current U.S. delegation is under the Biden administration, Trump’s re-election casts uncertainty over future U.S. climate commitments, putting funding pledges in question and complicating an already challenging negotiation.

A general view of installed solar panels at the Khavda Renewable Energy Park of Adani Green Energy Ltd (AGEL), in Khavda, India, April 12, 2024.
| Photo Credit: Reuters

With just five months to go before this year’s U.N. climate summit, countries cannot agree on the size of a global funding bill to help the developing world fight climate change – let alone how to split it.

The decision is set to dominate the COP29 climate talks in Azerbaijan in November, where nearly 200 countries need to agree on a new annual financing target for helping poorer countries cut their emissions and protect their societies in a harsher, hotter world.

The new target will replace the yearly $100 billion that rich countries had pledged in climate finance from 2020. That goal was met two years late.

But preliminary talks this week in Bonn, Germany, have yielded no major breakthroughs. Instead, the talks ending on Thursday have again exposed the unyielding rifts among the world’s biggest economies over who should be paying most to fight climate change – and how much.

Representatives from climate-vulnerable nations said it was hard watching wealthy nations fall late with past payments of climate finance while quickly approving new funds for military responses to war or spending billions subsidising CO2-emitting energy sources.

“It seems like money is always there when it’s a more ‘real’ national priority for the country,” Michai Robertson, negotiator for the Alliance of Small Island States, told Reuters.

“It’s really tough to see that,” he said.

Getting the number right

The new financing target is the core tool that global climate talks can deliver to fund projects that reduce planet-warming emissions – such as renewable energy or low-carbon transport.

With all countries due to update their national climate targets next year, negotiators fear failure could lead to weaker efforts.

“How are you going to move forward if there’s no financing?” said South African climate negotiator Pemy Gasela. Her country is among many developing nations warning they cannot afford to cut emissions faster without more financial support – in South Africa’s case, to swap a heavy reliance on CO2-emitting coal for clean energy.

Yet wealthy countries are wary of setting a target too high and risking it going unmet. The missed $100 billion target became politically symbolic in recent U.N. climate talks, stoking mistrust between nations as developing countries argued the world’s economic powers were abandoning them.

Diplomats in Bonn have circled the issue of how much money to put on the table.

While countries agree $100 billion is too low, there is little chance they would agree to summon the $2.4 trillion per year that the U.N. climate chief in February said was needed to keep the world’s climate goals within reach.

Neither the European Union or the U.S. have suggested a number for the goal, although both acknowledged this week that it must exceed $100 billion. The 27-country EU is currently the biggest provider of climate finance.

The elephant in the negotiation rooms, some diplomats told Reuters, was the upcoming U.S. presidential election, in which Donald Trump is seeking to return to office.

The previous Trump administration pulled the world’s biggest economy out of the Paris climate agreement. Negotiators said they worry a future Trump administration could halt U.S. climate finance payments, leaving it to other wealthy nations to meet the annual pledge.

But some countries in Bonn have made suggestions.

India, and a group of Arab countries including Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt, have said the overall financing target should exceed $1 trillion per year, to reflect the spiralling needs of poorer countries as climate change worsens.

The Arab countries propose that rich nations provide $441 billion in public funding per year in grants, to leverage a total $1.1 trillion per year from broader sources.

Small island countries vulnerable to climate change have also pushed for stricter rules on what counts toward the target, suggesting preventing loans with interest rates above 1%, to avoid adding to poor nations’ already-high debts.

Most public climate funds provided by developed nations are loans, according to the OECD.

Deciding who should pay

Countries are also at odds over who should contribute.

There are about two dozen, long-industrialized countries currently obliged to contribute to U.N. climate finance. That list was decided during U.N. climate talks in 1992, when China’s economy was still smaller than Italy’s.

The EU wants China – now the world’s biggest CO2 emitter and second biggest economy – and high wealth-per-capita Middle Eastern countries to contribute for the new goal. The U.S. has also argued for adding more countries in the donor base.

However, the Arab countries and China firmly opposed this idea, with Beijing reiterating China’s status as a “developing country” under the U.N. climate convention.

“We, the developing countries, have no intention to make your number look good or be part of your responsibility, as we are doing all we can do to save the world,” China’s negotiator told other diplomats during negotiations on the finance target in Bonn on Tuesday.

Neither camp of countries has compromised on who should pay, said Joe Thwaites, who tracks climate finance negotiations for the non-profit Natural Resources Defense Council.

“Negotiations were difficult and things are moving slowly,” he said.

As talks continue beyond Bonn, some negotiators said government ministers could raise the issue at higher level meetings such as G20 ministers’ gatherings in Brazil ahead of COP29.