At the COP29 summit in Baku, a deal was reached in the early hours of the morning after tense negotiations, securing $300 billion per year for climate finance aimed at emissions reduction and climate adaptation in developing countries, starting in 2035. However, the agreement was met with sharp criticism from developing nations, with many describing the deal as insufficient and delayed.
The negotiations had reached a boiling point, with the possibility of a collapse looming. A previous offer of $250 billion annually from wealthy industrialized nations, including the EU, US, and Japan, was dismissed as inadequate by developing countries. Civil society observers reported that the offer was later raised to $300 billion, but it was still not enough to satisfy the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) group and the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), who walked out in protest. While they did not completely abandon the talks, their patience appeared to be wearing thin.
The G77+China group, which represents much of Latin America, Africa, and Asia, had pushed for a target of $500 billion, arguing that this figure would better reflect the needs of developing countries. However, the offer from wealthy Western nations fell short of this demand, leading to tensions throughout the discussions.
US climate envoy John Podesta faced significant criticism as he left the meeting room following the walkouts. Climate campaigners accused the Biden administration of failing to honor its pledge to pay a fair share, with some expressing their frustration by chanting “shame” as Podesta was escorted out by security. Critics pointed out that the current administration was falling short of the climate justice agenda that Biden had championed during his election campaign.
Despite the protests, the talks continued behind closed doors, with delegates working late into the night to finalize the deal. COP29 President Mukhtar Babayev urged participants to engage with one another, emphasizing the importance of reaching an agreement that could have global implications.
In the end, the finance deal was finalized, but the disagreement over the amount of support for climate-vulnerable nations left many feeling that the summit’s outcome was far from sufficient to address the scale of the climate crisis. The deal marks a significant commitment to future funding, but many delegates remain concerned about its timeliness and adequacy in the face of escalating climate impacts.