COP29 Climate Agreement Criticized as Insufficient by Developing Nations

Developed nations have committed to increasing their financial contributions to assist less affluent countries in combating climate change, pledging a record $300bn (£238bn) annually. However, the resulting agreement has drawn criticism from the developing world. The discussions at the UN climate summit COP29 in Azerbaijan extended 33 hours beyond schedule and nearly failed. The accord provides significantly less than the $1.3tr developing countries had advocated for. The African Group of Negotiators characterized the final commitment as “too little, too late,” while India’s representative dismissed the allocated sum as “a paltry sum.” Despite two weeks of often contentious negotiations in Baku, Azerbaijan’s capital, poorer nations ultimately did not obstruct the agreement. The pledge of additional funds acknowledges that developing nations bear a disproportionate impact from climate change, despite historically contributing the least to it. Simon Stiell, head of the UN climate body, acknowledged that the agreement was imperfect. “No country got everything they wanted, and we leave Baku with a mountain of work still to do,” he stated. The deal was revealed at 03:00 local time on Sunday (23:00 GMT on Saturday). In addition to the $300bn (£238bn) per year by 2035, it also includes commitments to mobilize $1.3tn annually from both public and private sources by that date. The announcement was met with acclamation and applause, yet a vehement address from India indicated that significant discontent persisted. “The amount that is proposed to be mobilised is abysmally poor. It’s a paltry sum,” Leela Nandan informed the conference. Cedric Schuster, chair of the Alliance of Small Island States, stated: “Our islands are sinking. How can you expect us to go back to the women, men, and children of our countries with a poor deal?”. The committed funds are intended to assist less affluent countries in transitioning from fossil fuels and supporting investment in renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. There was also a pledge to triple funding directed towards preparing countries for climate change. Historically, only 40% of available climate change funding has been allocated for this purpose. This year, which is now “virtually certain” to be the warmest on record, has been marked by intense heatwaves and deadly storms. Climate charities have expressed disapproval of the finalized agreement. Jasper Inventor, head of the COP29 Greenpeace delegation, labeled the deal “woefully inadequate” and asserted that “reckless nature destroyers” were being protected by “every government’s low climate ambition.” WaterAid described the agreement as a “death sentence for millions,” while a spokesperson for Extinction Rebellion declared that COP29 had “failed.” Mike Childs, head of policy for Friends of Earth, commented that regarding climate leadership, the planet is still “light years away from where we were” at last year’s meeting in Dubai. “These latest international talks failed to solve the question of climate finance,” he said. “Instead they have again kicked the can down the road.” The commencement of the talks on 11 November was overshadowed by the election of US President Donald Trump, who will assume office in January. He is a climate sceptic who has indicated his intention to withdraw the US from the landmark Paris agreement, which in 2015 established a roadmap for nations to address climate change. “For sure it brought the headline number down. The other developed country donors are acutely aware that Trump will not pay a penny and they will have to make up the shortfall,” Prof Joanna Depledge, an expert on international climate negotiations at Cambridge University, informed the BBC. The conclusion of this agreement indicates that countries remain committed to collaborative climate action, but with the planet’s largest economy now unlikely to participate, efforts to achieve the multi-billion dollar goal will be complicated. “The protracted end game at COP29 is reflective of the harder geopolitical terrain the world finds itself in. The result is a flawed compromise between donor countries and the most vulnerable nations in the world,” said Li Shuo from the think-tank Asia Society Policy Institute. UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband emphasized that the new pledge does not obligate the UK to provide more climate finance but rather presents a “huge opportunity for British businesses” to invest in other markets. “It is not everything we or others wanted but it is a step forward for us all,” he said. In exchange for pledging additional funds, developed nations, including the UK and the European Union, sought firmer commitments from countries to reduce their use of fossil fuels. Despite their hopes that the accord reached during discussions in Dubai last year to “transition away from fossil fuels” would be strengthened, the final proposed agreement merely reiterated it. For many nations, this was insufficient, and it was rejected; it will now require agreement next year. Countries reliant on oil and gas exports reportedly resisted strongly in negotiations to prevent further advancements. “The Arab Group will not accept any text that targets specific sectors, including fossil fuels,” Saudi Arabia’s Albara Tawfiq stated at an open meeting earlier this week. Several nations arrived at the summit with updated strategies to address climate change within their own borders. Prime Minister Keir Starmer aimed for climate leadership on the world stage and committed to cutting UK emissions by 81% by 2035, a target widely lauded as ambitious. The host nation, Azerbaijan, proved a contentious selection for the climate talks. It has stated its intention to increase gas production by up to a third in the next decade. Brazil is considered a more suitable host for next year’s climate summit, COP30, in the city of Belém, due to President Lula’s strong commitments to climate change and reducing deforestation in the globally important Amazon rainforest. Copyright 2024 BBC. All rights reserved. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.