Climate summit concludes with hard-earned agreement — amid widespread frustration
Developing nations received a commitment of at least $300 billion in climate financing from affluent countries, including the United States and European Union member states. However, their demands exceeded this initial promise.
TroibNews 
BAKU, Azerbaijan — Early Sunday, countries reached an agreement that calls on wealthy, developed nations to contribute at least $300 billion to assist poorer nations in transitioning away from polluting energy sources, concluding two weeks of intense negotiations that were at risk of collapse on several occasions.
The agreement was not achieved without significant controversy.
The amount is below what developing nations had sought and falls short of the trillions they will require over the coming decade. However, given the current geopolitical unrest and growing divides between affluent and impoverished nations, it may be the best outcome achievable, especially with the impending possibility of another Donald Trump presidency in the U.S.
The response from developing nations was a blend of frustration and reluctant acceptance.
“This has been stage managed, and we are extremely, extremely disappointed,” Chandni Raina, India’s negotiator, stated to the plenary hall after the deal was finalized. She described the funding amount as “paltry” and characterized the agreement as “nothing more than an optical illusion,” emphasizing that her country, the most populous globally, “opposes the adoption of this document.”
Tina Stege, the climate envoy for the Marshall Islands, criticized the talks as an exhibition of “political opportunism,” adding, “We are leaving with a small portion of the funding climate-vulnerable countries urgently need. It isn’t nearly enough, but it’s a start.”
Ultimately, the outcome hinged on negotiations between established and emerging powers, with a steadfast Saudi petrostate and a U.S. government that has pledged to show climate leadership despite anticipating a significant policy shift in the near future.
The negotiations also resulted in agreements on the rules governing global carbon markets, a profit-focused method for generating climate funding, concluding a decade-long process. This framework could assist nations in achieving their climate objectives while providing financing to developing countries, provided they can address issues associated with substandard credits affecting current voluntary markets.
The newly established funding goal of at least $300 billion will derive from public finance and related transfers, including contributions channeled through multilateral development banks from multiple nations, including developing countries like China.
This effectively integrated China and other developing nations, which already contribute to various international financial institutions, into the effort to meet the newly set obligations of wealthier nations.
The EU and U.S. had insisted that China and other large, emerging economies contribute to the new financial target, and this provision allowed the EU, U.K., and U.S. to claim a partial success.
“The new finance goal rightly reflects the importance of going beyond traditional donors like Britain, and the role of countries like China in helping those on the frontline of this crisis,” British Energy Secretary Ed Miliband remarked.
The arrangement additionally creates space for countries like China to contribute further on a voluntary basis without impacting their status as developing countries—allowing both sides to assert a degree of accomplishment.
“We are not prepared to erase the definitions,” asserted a Brazilian negotiator who requested anonymity to discuss internal conversations.
The final agreement also acknowledged a commitment made at last year’s climate summit for countries to move away from fossil fuels, although it did so without explicitly referencing such energy sources or outlining specific actions to hasten progress toward this goal, a push that was resisted by Saudi Arabia's delegation and a coalition of emerging economies including China and India.
“It's disappointing,” Miliband said. “It's important not to make any bones about it.”
The agreement, alongside the preceding tumult, tested Azerbaijan’s ability to host critical climate discussions while dealing with European governments and critiques regarding its democracy and human rights record. Next year, Brazil will take up the task, with President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva overseeing the discussions in Belém, a city recognized as the “gateway to the Amazon.”
The clash over funding crystallized the chasm between affluent and impoverished nations. Wealthier countries such as the U.S., Canada, the U.K., and Germany have historically relied on fossil fuels for economic growth and possess the means to transition to renewable energy sources. In contrast, many developing nations still face significant energy access challenges, with tens of millions lacking electricity and constrained government budgets often hampered by debt payments.
The situation is further complicated by the presence of small island nations and numerous impoverished countries that have contributed minimally to global emissions yet remain extraordinarily susceptible to the adverse effects of climate change, such as heat waves and flooding. Additionally, oil-rich Gulf states and emerging economies like Brazil and India are experiencing rapid increases in greenhouse gas emissions, while China stands as the largest carbon emitter yet is also a leader in green energy and holds the position of the second-largest global economy.
Without adequate funding, developing countries struggle to pivot away from polluting practices, resulting in broader global repercussions.
“Finance is not a hand-out,” U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres reminded journalists as the summit drew to a close. “It’s an investment against the devastation that unchecked climate chaos will inflict on us all.”
The discussions concerning finance have been long in the making. Over the past three years, countries have been preparing to address these challenges at COP29.
The new funding target replaces a decade-and-a-half-old pledge by wealthy nations to deliver $100 billion annually from 2020 to 2025, a commitment that only materialized in 2022.
Since then, the expenses stemming from climate-induced disasters and the financial requirements for transitioning economies have escalated sharply. A study by U.N.-backed experts indicates that developed nations need approximately $1 trillion each year in external funding until 2030 to achieve their climate objectives. Of that, $300 billion should be allocated for public-related finance flows through 2030—aligning with the outcome of the talks. That amount will need to rise to at least $390 billion annually by 2035, according to the same study.
However, an initial draft of the new proposal generated uproar within the convention halls due to its vague language and missing elements. Wealthy countries offered no updated financial figures. Privately, some European diplomats disparaged the package, labeling it “empty,” “not helpful,” “unserious,” and, in one instance, “shit.”
The scenario did not improve from there.
Even after PMG reported on Monday that the European Union had discussed an annual financial goal of $200 billion to $300 billion, developed nations remained tight-lipped about any specific numbers or the details of their internal discussions. Their hesitation to propose concrete financial commitments led to accusations from many developing nations that they were not negotiating in good faith.
Meanwhile, the U.S. delegation—just months away from electing a new president who dismisses climate change—maintained a low profile. When nearly a dozen countries held a press conference on Thursday to announce their ambitious climate targets for February, American officials attended, despite the U.S. having withdrawn from the initiative.
“You can either get things done or you can take the credit,” a senior U.S. official remarked to PMG.
The U.S. has been similarly silent regarding the new finance target, indicating only that they were pushing for something ambitious but feasible.
U.S. representatives have made efforts to put a positive spin on Washington’s reluctance to assert bolder public positions. On financial contributions, they claimed to be negotiating a deal to which they could ultimately commit when a favorable political climate arises in the U.S.
“I think we were an important voice for ambition in these negotiations,” asserted John Podesta, senior climate adviser to Biden, after the agreement was reached on Sunday.
Others in attendance took a more critical view of the U.S. stance, alleging that American officials “behaved as if they have got more influence than they have when they have only got weeks left in power,” said one anonymous European diplomat.
In response, European delegates maintained that the $300 billion offer represented their maximum contribution. Still, among EU representatives, some questioned whether it was wise to postpone discussions about specific targets until the final days of the summit.
“Why, why, why would you wait till two days before crunch time to say a number?” asked a senior European diplomat on Saturday afternoon. “I don’t think we’ve been handling this well.”
Developing nations argue that external finances are critical for them to achieve their national climate commitments and fortify their defenses against worsening extreme weather conditions. If the overarching goal of these discussions is to motivate countries to undertake increasingly robust actions to diminish their greenhouse gas emissions, financial resources are essential to drive progress.
“Mitigation is in our interest because we can't adapt to a world of 3 degrees or 2.8 forever,” stated Ali Mohamed, climate envoy for Kenya, which chairs the Africa Group of negotiators. “However, that requires investment, that requires support.”
A proposal for $250 billion surfaced on Friday afternoon, but it was met with criticism from poorer nations and vulnerable island states. Subsequently, a $300 billion offer from wealthy governments was presented as a final ultimatum on Saturday, landing heavily on more than 100 developing countries.
During a closed-door meeting on Saturday intended for countries to negotiate their differences, a coalition of the world's poorest nations, known as the LDCs, announced their temporary withdrawal from the negotiations due to their perceived exclusion.
“We don’t think as LDCs we have been consulted when these versions were drafted,” expressed Jiwoh Emmanuel Abdulahi, environment minister for Sierra Leone.
The group of small island nations resonated with this sentiment.
“We feel as though we’re left with nothing from this COP,” stated Samoan natural resources minister Cedric Schuster, representing the Alliance of Small Island States, addressing the other countries present. “Is this how we treat the countries with the moral high ground in the process, who stand to lose the most and have already lost so much?”
The final agreement contained a critical nuance: Wealthy nations would offer a minimum of $300 billion.
“I had hoped for a more ambitious outcome…to meet the great challenge we face,” Guterres commented following the conclusion of the summit. “But this agreement provides a base on which to build.”
Emily Johnson for TROIB News
The agreement was not achieved without significant controversy.
The amount is below what developing nations had sought and falls short of the trillions they will require over the coming decade. However, given the current geopolitical unrest and growing divides between affluent and impoverished nations, it may be the best outcome achievable, especially with the impending possibility of another Donald Trump presidency in the U.S.
The response from developing nations was a blend of frustration and reluctant acceptance.
“This has been stage managed, and we are extremely, extremely disappointed,” Chandni Raina, India’s negotiator, stated to the plenary hall after the deal was finalized. She described the funding amount as “paltry” and characterized the agreement as “nothing more than an optical illusion,” emphasizing that her country, the most populous globally, “opposes the adoption of this document.”
Tina Stege, the climate envoy for the Marshall Islands, criticized the talks as an exhibition of “political opportunism,” adding, “We are leaving with a small portion of the funding climate-vulnerable countries urgently need. It isn’t nearly enough, but it’s a start.”
Ultimately, the outcome hinged on negotiations between established and emerging powers, with a steadfast Saudi petrostate and a U.S. government that has pledged to show climate leadership despite anticipating a significant policy shift in the near future.
The negotiations also resulted in agreements on the rules governing global carbon markets, a profit-focused method for generating climate funding, concluding a decade-long process. This framework could assist nations in achieving their climate objectives while providing financing to developing countries, provided they can address issues associated with substandard credits affecting current voluntary markets.
The newly established funding goal of at least $300 billion will derive from public finance and related transfers, including contributions channeled through multilateral development banks from multiple nations, including developing countries like China.
This effectively integrated China and other developing nations, which already contribute to various international financial institutions, into the effort to meet the newly set obligations of wealthier nations.
The EU and U.S. had insisted that China and other large, emerging economies contribute to the new financial target, and this provision allowed the EU, U.K., and U.S. to claim a partial success.
“The new finance goal rightly reflects the importance of going beyond traditional donors like Britain, and the role of countries like China in helping those on the frontline of this crisis,” British Energy Secretary Ed Miliband remarked.
The arrangement additionally creates space for countries like China to contribute further on a voluntary basis without impacting their status as developing countries—allowing both sides to assert a degree of accomplishment.
“We are not prepared to erase the definitions,” asserted a Brazilian negotiator who requested anonymity to discuss internal conversations.
The final agreement also acknowledged a commitment made at last year’s climate summit for countries to move away from fossil fuels, although it did so without explicitly referencing such energy sources or outlining specific actions to hasten progress toward this goal, a push that was resisted by Saudi Arabia's delegation and a coalition of emerging economies including China and India.
“It's disappointing,” Miliband said. “It's important not to make any bones about it.”
The agreement, alongside the preceding tumult, tested Azerbaijan’s ability to host critical climate discussions while dealing with European governments and critiques regarding its democracy and human rights record. Next year, Brazil will take up the task, with President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva overseeing the discussions in Belém, a city recognized as the “gateway to the Amazon.”
The clash over funding crystallized the chasm between affluent and impoverished nations. Wealthier countries such as the U.S., Canada, the U.K., and Germany have historically relied on fossil fuels for economic growth and possess the means to transition to renewable energy sources. In contrast, many developing nations still face significant energy access challenges, with tens of millions lacking electricity and constrained government budgets often hampered by debt payments.
The situation is further complicated by the presence of small island nations and numerous impoverished countries that have contributed minimally to global emissions yet remain extraordinarily susceptible to the adverse effects of climate change, such as heat waves and flooding. Additionally, oil-rich Gulf states and emerging economies like Brazil and India are experiencing rapid increases in greenhouse gas emissions, while China stands as the largest carbon emitter yet is also a leader in green energy and holds the position of the second-largest global economy.
Without adequate funding, developing countries struggle to pivot away from polluting practices, resulting in broader global repercussions.
“Finance is not a hand-out,” U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres reminded journalists as the summit drew to a close. “It’s an investment against the devastation that unchecked climate chaos will inflict on us all.”
The discussions concerning finance have been long in the making. Over the past three years, countries have been preparing to address these challenges at COP29.
The new funding target replaces a decade-and-a-half-old pledge by wealthy nations to deliver $100 billion annually from 2020 to 2025, a commitment that only materialized in 2022.
Since then, the expenses stemming from climate-induced disasters and the financial requirements for transitioning economies have escalated sharply. A study by U.N.-backed experts indicates that developed nations need approximately $1 trillion each year in external funding until 2030 to achieve their climate objectives. Of that, $300 billion should be allocated for public-related finance flows through 2030—aligning with the outcome of the talks. That amount will need to rise to at least $390 billion annually by 2035, according to the same study.
However, an initial draft of the new proposal generated uproar within the convention halls due to its vague language and missing elements. Wealthy countries offered no updated financial figures. Privately, some European diplomats disparaged the package, labeling it “empty,” “not helpful,” “unserious,” and, in one instance, “shit.”
The scenario did not improve from there.
Even after PMG reported on Monday that the European Union had discussed an annual financial goal of $200 billion to $300 billion, developed nations remained tight-lipped about any specific numbers or the details of their internal discussions. Their hesitation to propose concrete financial commitments led to accusations from many developing nations that they were not negotiating in good faith.
Meanwhile, the U.S. delegation—just months away from electing a new president who dismisses climate change—maintained a low profile. When nearly a dozen countries held a press conference on Thursday to announce their ambitious climate targets for February, American officials attended, despite the U.S. having withdrawn from the initiative.
“You can either get things done or you can take the credit,” a senior U.S. official remarked to PMG.
The U.S. has been similarly silent regarding the new finance target, indicating only that they were pushing for something ambitious but feasible.
U.S. representatives have made efforts to put a positive spin on Washington’s reluctance to assert bolder public positions. On financial contributions, they claimed to be negotiating a deal to which they could ultimately commit when a favorable political climate arises in the U.S.
“I think we were an important voice for ambition in these negotiations,” asserted John Podesta, senior climate adviser to Biden, after the agreement was reached on Sunday.
Others in attendance took a more critical view of the U.S. stance, alleging that American officials “behaved as if they have got more influence than they have when they have only got weeks left in power,” said one anonymous European diplomat.
In response, European delegates maintained that the $300 billion offer represented their maximum contribution. Still, among EU representatives, some questioned whether it was wise to postpone discussions about specific targets until the final days of the summit.
“Why, why, why would you wait till two days before crunch time to say a number?” asked a senior European diplomat on Saturday afternoon. “I don’t think we’ve been handling this well.”
Developing nations argue that external finances are critical for them to achieve their national climate commitments and fortify their defenses against worsening extreme weather conditions. If the overarching goal of these discussions is to motivate countries to undertake increasingly robust actions to diminish their greenhouse gas emissions, financial resources are essential to drive progress.
“Mitigation is in our interest because we can't adapt to a world of 3 degrees or 2.8 forever,” stated Ali Mohamed, climate envoy for Kenya, which chairs the Africa Group of negotiators. “However, that requires investment, that requires support.”
A proposal for $250 billion surfaced on Friday afternoon, but it was met with criticism from poorer nations and vulnerable island states. Subsequently, a $300 billion offer from wealthy governments was presented as a final ultimatum on Saturday, landing heavily on more than 100 developing countries.
During a closed-door meeting on Saturday intended for countries to negotiate their differences, a coalition of the world's poorest nations, known as the LDCs, announced their temporary withdrawal from the negotiations due to their perceived exclusion.
“We don’t think as LDCs we have been consulted when these versions were drafted,” expressed Jiwoh Emmanuel Abdulahi, environment minister for Sierra Leone.
The group of small island nations resonated with this sentiment.
“We feel as though we’re left with nothing from this COP,” stated Samoan natural resources minister Cedric Schuster, representing the Alliance of Small Island States, addressing the other countries present. “Is this how we treat the countries with the moral high ground in the process, who stand to lose the most and have already lost so much?”
The final agreement contained a critical nuance: Wealthy nations would offer a minimum of $300 billion.
“I had hoped for a more ambitious outcome…to meet the great challenge we face,” Guterres commented following the conclusion of the summit. “But this agreement provides a base on which to build.”
Emily Johnson for TROIB News
