At COP29 in Azerbaijan, wealthier nations pledged a record $300 billion annually by 2035 to help poorer countries combat climate change. While this represents an increase in funding, it fell far short of the $1.3 trillion requested by developing nations, leading to sharp criticism. India denounced the sum as “paltry,” while small island states, facing existential threats from rising seas, called the deal inadequate. The summit, which stretched 33 hours past its deadline, revealed deep divisions between the global north and south, with bitterness overshadowing the applause for the agreement.
This funding aims to assist vulnerable nations in transitioning to renewable energy and preparing for the impacts of climate change. However, it includes a mix of grants and loans, further straining trust. Critics like Greenpeace labelled the deal “woefully inadequate,” and some NGOs described it as a “death sentence” for millions. The controversy is compounded by geopolitical tensions, with concerns that future US climate leadership under Donald Trump could derail progress, prompting negotiators to ensure long-term commitments.
Host country Azerbaijan faced scrutiny, as its oil-dependent economy and authoritarian leadership clashed with the summit’s goals. The challenges of shepherding 200 nations to agreement exposed weaknesses in the COP process, with calls for reform intensifying. Meanwhile, China signalled a more active role, voluntarily contributing to climate finance, a move seen as a potential shift in global climate leadership.
As the world prepares for new national climate plans next year, the frustration expressed at COP29 highlights the urgency of bridging divides. With 2023 likely the hottest year on record, the stakes for effective and equitable action have never been higher. Whether this summit marks a turning point or another missed opportunity remains to be seen.
