After intense negotiations and the threat of collapse, COP29 in Baku concluded with a landmark agreement: Western nations will provide $300 billion annually starting in 2035 to finance emissions reductions and climate adaptation in developing countries. While the deal represents a major commitment, it has been met with significant dissatisfaction from many developing nations, who argue that it falls short of addressing their urgent needs.
The talks nearly unraveled when an initial offer of $250 billion per year from industrialized nations, including the EU, US, and Japan, was roundly rejected by developing countries. This offer was quickly revised upward to $300 billion, but still failed to meet the expectations of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) group and the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS). Both groups walked out in protest, though they did not abandon the negotiations entirely, signaling their growing frustration with the process.
The G77+China group, which represents a broad coalition of nations from Latin America, Africa, and Asia, had called for a significantly higher amount—$500 billion annually—to replace the existing $100 billion financing target. However, the wealthier Western countries were unwilling to meet this demand, leaving many delegates feeling that the final agreement was inadequate.
The walkout by smaller island states and the LDCs was met with criticism of the US, particularly directed at climate envoy John Podesta. Activists accused the Biden administration of backtracking on its promises to contribute a fair share to climate finance, with some expressing their frustration by shouting “shame” as Podesta was escorted out of the meeting by security.
Despite these tensions, talks continued behind closed doors, with COP29 President Mukhtar Babayev urging delegates to work towards a resolution. In the early hours of Sunday morning, the $300 billion finance deal was finalized, though many climate campaigners remain skeptical about the deal’s ability to address the growing challenges posed by climate change in vulnerable nations.
While the agreement is a significant step forward, the lack of consensus on the scale of the financial commitment underscores the ongoing divide between developed and developing nations on how to fairly share the burden of climate action.
