The COP29 climate talks held in Baku marked the 29th occasion in 32 years for nations worldwide to convene and discuss strategies to address climate change.For the first time in history, climate finance stood out as the primary focus on the agenda.
The fallout from the disputes and divisions that emerged will significantly influence climate politics for years ahead.Prior to the actual negotiations, it was widely acknowledged that approximately $1 trillion annually would be required by 2030, escalating to $1.3 trillion by 2035.This funding would enable nations to transition to low carbon emission strategies, benefiting everyone.
Throughout the discussions, UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell consistently stressed that climate finance should not be viewed as charity.Given our shared atmosphere, diminishing emissions in developed countries holds little value if emissions continue to grow in emerging markets and developing nations with the highest population increases.
This message was echoed multiple times by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, who urged negotiators to reconsider their rigid positions.UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres urged negotiators to soften their hard lines.
In principle, all negotiating parties recognized the need for additional financing, with no dissent.The central debate revolved around ensuring the provision of such vast sums.
Key questions arose: Who will contribute, who will benefit, and how much should originate from governments, the private sector, the World Bank, and other multilateral development banks?
Should China, categorized as a developing country on a 1992 listing, be exempt, or expected to contribute?The wealthy Arab oil states also remain on that list and resist any attempts to remove them.
Discussions also included the prospect of implementing new global taxes earmarked for climate finance, such as levies on air travel, shipping, or especially on oil and other fossil fuels.
Perhaps the most contentious topic was the extent of public finance to contribute to the $1 trillion target.
Many poorer nations preferred public finance as their primary funding avenue.
Funds from governments, like ours, are typically provided as grants rather than loans, avoiding imposing heavy debts on developing nations that could hinder their progress.
Numerous non-governmental organizations advocating for the so-called Global South argued that the full $1 trillion annual funding goal by 2030 should come solely from the public finances of Western nations.
They insisted that any other arrangement would be unacceptable and a betrayal.
Mary Robinson, a climate champion and member of the Elders, informed them upon her arrival last week that they would need to adjust their expectations.
If an annual commitment of $300 million for climate finance from government sources by 2030 could be secured, that would be a significant achievement, she said.
The remainder would need to be sourced from other avenues, including the private sector.
However, this did not dampen the demands from civil society organizations or the criticisms directed at wealthy nations.
Laurie van der Burg from Oil Change International stated that a commitment for only €300 million in climate finance from government sources would be shameful.
She argued it would allow affluent countries to evade the climate debt owed to the Global South by leaning on the private sector to cover the remaining financial needs.
This approach would potentially trap the most vulnerable nations in debt, exacerbating their struggles during the climate crisis.
“Wealthy nations must significantly increase their contributions and repay the trillions they owe to the Global South. They have the potential to raise over $5 trillion annually for climate action by ending fossil fuel subsidies, taxing the ultra-wealthy, and reforming inequitable global financial regulations,” she asserted.
Robinson identified Saudi Arabia and its Arab coalition as the foremost obstructionists hindering a comprehensive agreement.
Russia, another significant oil producer, was also impeding progress for geopolitical reasons, according to her.
Oil states obstructing the agreement are shielded, claimed Germany’s Foreign Minister.
Annalena Baerbock, Germany’s Foreign Minister, expressed her frustration on the final day of negotiations, accusing the oil-producing states of being shielded and supported by the COP29 Presidency, Azerbaijan, which is also a major oil producer.
Read more: COP29 clinches $300bn for poor nations in climate deal
“We are in the midst of a geopolitical struggle led by a few fossil fuel nations.
“Their battleground is the plight of the poorest and most vulnerable nations.
“As the European Union, we will not endorse a deal that adversely impacts those most affected by the climate crisis.”
German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock stated that oil states obstructing the agreement were being protected by the COP29 Presidency, Azerbaijan.
She characterized the situation during the most contentious phase of negotiations as the last stand of the old fossil fuel paradigm, vowing that the EU would not let the most vulnerable, particularly small island nations, be exploited by a handful of wealthy fossil fuel emitters.
She declared, “Climate finance and CO2 reduction are intricately linked. Thus, we in the EU have enhanced our financial commitments through 2035.
“We continue to strive to build bridges. We are fulfilling our responsibilities, particularly as past CO2 emitters.”
No deal is preferable to a bad deal, reinforce activists.
This sentiment resonated with civil society organizations that consistently demonstrated outside the expansive COP29 plenary halls until the very last moment.
They rallied under banners, urging negotiators to represent the global south.
Their rallying cry was simple: No deal is better than a bad deal.
These civil society groups expressed their outrage at the failure of the global north to compensate for the climate harm inflicted on poorer nations through their carbon emissions.
They continue to devastate our lands, charged Haneen Shaheen, an Arab World Member of the Climate Action Network.
“We must clarify obligations—those relating to ecological debt, environmental collapse, and transgressing planetary boundaries,” she insisted.
“Our lives, our present, and our future are at stake.”
A youth representative from Africa articulated feelings of frustration, anger, and disappointment.
Activists demanding public climate finance for impoverished countries at COP29.
“We convene year after year at COP summits, listening to promises and declarations. However, the reality is betrayal—a betrayal of the planet, a betrayal of vulnerable communities, a betrayal of the younger generation. Meanwhile, politicians congratulate themselves.
“We comb through these texts and draft decisions for COP, only to encounter a disheartening repetition of unfulfilled promises and pledges from a system designed against those in need.
“The needs are astronomical. We require trillions, not billions. Where are the funds, and where is the justice?”
Activist Tetet Lauron was even more fervent in her criticism.
She labeled the climate negotiations as a farce that has continued for the past 30 years.
She lamented, “Our people are dying. They are being displaced. The climate crisis is here, and we are not the cause.”
Activists protest against fossil fuels and advocate for climate finance at COP29.
“People are silenced, killed, and harassed for defending environmental rights.
“This is the way wealthy countries of the global north, along with their corporations, employ dirty tactics to confuse everyone while perpetuating the myth that fossil fuels are clean and that corporations can genuinely solve these issues, and that multilateral development banks are delivering climate finance.
“No, they are not.
“We are mired in debt, and their actions waste our time while lives are lost to floods. They are destroying our world, jeopardizing our future, and threatening generations to come.
“If they believe we will accept private sector control over our future, guiding our adaptation strategies and dictating our actions, then we are saying no.”
The intensity of these sentiments capped a grueling fortnight at the climate talks in Baku.
It is evident from the passion expressed by civil society groups that the struggle for climate justice will persist.
