Five key points from COP29

COP29 has ended, with developing countries complaining that the $300 billion (about £240 billion) a year in climate finance they will receive by 2035 is a “paltry sum”.

Many rich-nation voices at the United Nations climate conference were surprised to see developing nations unhappy with what on the surface appeared to be a giant settlement. That’s an improvement – based on current contributions of $100 billion (£79.8 billion) a year.

However, the developing world, which has pushed for more, has encountered real problems with the final amount.

There are complaints that it simply isn’t enough and that it’s a mix of grants and loans. And countries are extremely uncomfortable with the way the rich wait until the last minute to show up.

“It’s a small amount of money,” Indian delegate Chandni Raina told other delegates after the deal was approved.

“This document is nothing more than an optical illusion. In our view, this will not address the scale of the challenges we all face.”

Ultimately, the developing world was forced to accept it, with many rich countries pointing to the emergence of President Donald Trump, a famous climate skeptic, and saying they would not reach a deal. better convenience.

But the package has also been criticized as short-sighted from the perspective of richer countries.

The argument goes that if you want to keep the world safe from rising temperatures then richer countries need to help emerging economies cut emissions, because that’s where 75% of the increase is taking place. emissions growth over the past decade.

New national plans will be published next spring to outline how each country will limit planet-warming emissions over the next 10 years.

A more generous cash settlement at COP29 would certainly have a positive impact on those efforts.

And at a time of geopolitical uncertainty and distraction, keeping nations united on climate is vital. The Great Money War has reopened the old divide between rich and poor, with anger and bitterness the likes of which I haven’t seen in years.

Leading 200 countries to a complex agreement on climate finance was always going to be a difficult task. But for host Azerbaijan, a country with no real history of participating in the COP process, it was almost beyond their means.

The country’s president, Ilham Aliyev, has not helped matters in any way describes oil and gas as “God’s gift”. His blunt attacks – accusing “Western fake news media”, charities and politicians of “spreading misinformation” – have failed to improve matters.

Azerbaijan follows Egypt and the United Arab Emirates as the third consecutive authoritarian country to host the COP, raising concerns about the choice of host country.

Azerbaijan, like the UAE, has an economy built on oil and gas exports, which seems at odds with a process aimed at helping the world transition away from coal, oil and gas.

Privately, many senior negotiators have spoken of their disappointment with what some have called the worst COP in a decade. Halfway through the meeting, several senior climate leaders wrote a public letter saying the COP was not fit for purpose and called for reform.

With the US’s role in future climate negotiations in doubt because of Trump, attention turns to who could emerge as a real climate leader in the event of an expected US ​will be absent for the next 4 years.

The natural successor is China.

The world’s largest carbon emitter was largely silent at this year’s COP, only raising its hand for the first time to provide details about the amount of climate finance it provides to developing countries.

China is still identified by the United Nations as a “developing” country, meaning it has no official obligation to cut greenhouse gas emissions or provide financial help to poorer countries.

However, China agreed to a formula in the financing agreement that would allow its contributions to count toward an overall fund for climate-vulnerable countries, on a voluntary basis. .

Overall, a move considered very skillful and effective.

“China is becoming more transparent about its financial support to the global south,” said Li Shuo, from the Asia Society Policy Institute.

“This will push the country to play a bigger role in the future.”

Even though he wasn’t there, Trump’s presence was still felt throughout the COP.

A common factor among negotiators in Baku is the need to ensure that a second Trump administration will not upset years of careful climate negotiations.

So it’s not surprising to see richer countries want to commit to 2035. They believe setting that date would allow the US to contribute again after Trump leaves office.

Likewise, efforts to increase the contributor base were made with Trump in mind.

Bringing China to the negotiating table, even in a voluntary capacity, will be used to demonstrate that participation in international forums such as the COP is worthwhile.

“No one thought Trump entering the White House would do anything other than damage the multilateral climate regime,” said Professor Michael Jacobs, a senior fellow at the research organization ODI Global.

“But this agreement is about trying to limit the damage as much as possible.”

A very notable trend at COP29 is the sometimes stronger stance of many NGOs and environmental campaigners.

I witnessed it myself when US climate envoy John Podesta was kicked out of the meeting area with the slogan “shame” ringing in his ears.

Many developing countries rely on these NGOs to help resolve complex events such as COP.

During the negotiations, many of these campaigners pushed hard for an outright rejection of almost any deal.

Similarly, during the final plenary session when all countries accepted the financial text, there were loud cheers when speakers from several countries spoke out against the agreement, after the password.

Will confrontation and fierce debate become the new norm at climate diplomacy conferences?

We will have to wait for the next COP to see.