COP29- wealthy nations pledge $300 billion for developing countries.

The 29th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP29) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, held this November in Baku, Azerbaijan, is considered by many to have achieved little more success than managing to avoid a diplomatic coup.

Standing outside the hall in which the final meeting of the United Nations climate summit had just ended, Panama’s climate envoy Juan Carlos Monterrey described the gravity of the situation [“The goal of limiting global heating to] 1.5C was at the ICU. It feels like the bed just broke.’’

At COP29, the G77 bloc of developing nations, alongside China, held firm on their request to scale up climate finance through the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG). An ambitious call for higher financial commitments from developed countries, to support the developing world’s climate action.

The G77 plus China, which represents roughly 80 percent of the world’s population, demanded that $1.3 trillion annually in climate finance should be provided by developed nations to aid in developing nation’s adaptation, mitigation, and address loss and damage caused by the climate crisis. A figure vital to stay within the parameters of the Paris Agreement and limit global temperature rise to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

Africa’s needs “non-negotiable”

G77 member, Kenya, and its Special Envoy for Climate Change and chair of the African Group of Negotiators, Ali Mohamed, described Africa’s needs as ‘’non-negotiable,’’ and that the proposed $1.3 trillion target was ‘’a matter of survival, not just for us [Kenya], but for the planet.’’

However, ending in overtime in the early hours of Sunday morning, the final text of the NCQG was reluctantly agreed upon. A pledge by wealthy nations to mobilise $300 billion annually by 2035 for developing countries. Calling for nations to work towards reaching a $1.3 trillion climate financing goal by 2035.

Eleventh-hour deal

Despite a tripling of the previous commitment, the eleventh-hour deal fell drastically short of meeting the accelerating need for adequate finance. A substantial deficit that both delegates from developing nations and civil society groups condemned. For Panama, Africa, and the rest of the developing world it was the severing of a lifeline, and a decision that triggered worldwide discontent.

The financial deal was struck merely hours after delegations from least developed countries and from small island states walked out of the meeting, insisting that their needs were not being met, and that their pleas were being undermined with nothing but indifference.

Amongst these were African delegates. Africa, who has contributed least to greenhouse gas emissions, is enduring the worst of a climate crisis it did not cause. Thus, the insubstantial NCQG pledge has highlighted Africa’s need to pave its own path towards climate mitigation.

Kenya leads the way

Kenya is leading the way in this plight. Recognised by international leaders at COP29, Kenya has received $70 million in private funding from the Danish government to build the infrastructure to become a hub in renewable energy. This feat has been described by other African nations and Mike Elton Mposha, Zambia’s minister for green economy, as ‘an example for the continent.’ However, for the rest of the world, a transition to renewable energy seems slightly less likely.

Saudi Arabia transition from fossil fuels

While most of COP29 focused on the new climate finance deal, one significant element had been missed. At Cop28 in Saudi Arabia, countries had for the first time committed to transition away from fossil fuels.

This hard-won resolution, supported by developed and developing countries alike, was threatened by Cop29. Saudi Arabia appeared openly subversive towards their prior COP28 commitment, and this year’s summit failed to set steps towards building on last year’s pledge to triple renewable energy capacity by 2030 and transition away from fossil fuels. A result deemed by negotiators to be yet another failure of Baku, and an indication that the climate talks were at risk of being overpowered by fossil fuel interests.

It seemed that in Baku’s final hour, this was all too true. Just after 5am on Sunday morning, Azerbaijan had played host to a decisive overnight battle between the science of climate change, and fossil fuel wealth. The former (science), adamant that the continued burning of oil, gas, and coal, would reap catastrophic destruction and exceed 1.5C, while the latter (fossil fuel wealth) had already built the stadium in which the delegates sat. The international consensus across world was conclusive; It seemed that for COP29, science had lost, and finance had been the final blow.

As concluded by Ottmar Edenhofer, climate economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, ‘The climate summit in Baku was not a success but at best the avoidance of a diplomatic disaster.’

Natasha Tisminieszky has an M.A. in Environment, Development and Policy