Global Climate Deal Reached on Aid for Developing Nations After Summit Turmoil

Mukhtar Babayev, president of COP29, is pictured at the center during the closing plenary session of the COP29 UN Climate Summit early Sunday morning in Baku, Azerbaijan.

At COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, a new global climate agreement was reached Saturday after two weeks of turbulent negotiations and significant disruptions. Wealthy nations committed to providing $300 billion annually by 2035 to assist poorer countries in managing the escalating impacts of the climate crisis and transitioning to clean energy systems. However, the pledge, while historic, has been sharply criticized by many developing nations as inadequate compared to the $1.3 trillion experts estimate is needed to address the crisis effectively.

A Contentious Journey to Agreement

The talks, which extended 30 hours beyond their scheduled deadline, were marked by intense divisions, walkouts, and political conflicts. Small island states and least-developed countries walked out on Saturday, protesting insufficient commitments from richer nations. At one point, there was widespread concern that the summit would collapse entirely.

In the early hours of Sunday, after prolonged deliberations, an agreement was finally reached among nearly 200 countries. Mukhtar Babayev, president of COP29 and an experienced figure in Azerbaijan’s state oil industry, expressed pride in the outcome, stating:
"People doubted that Azerbaijan could deliver. They doubted that everyone could agree. They were wrong on both."

Wopke Hoekstra, the EU climate commissioner, addresses the closing plenary session at the COP29 climate summit in the early hours of Sunday morning, November 24, 2024.

Financial Commitments Under Scrutiny

The $300 billion annual commitment aims to help vulnerable nations combat extreme weather events, which are intensifying due to climate change, and to facilitate their shift to sustainable energy. Simon Stiell, head of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, described the deal as a vital "insurance policy for humanity."

However, the financial pledge falls far short of the $1.3 trillion estimated by economists to be necessary. This disparity provoked outrage among many developing countries, who argue that the nations most responsible for historical emissions are failing to meet their obligations.

In a fiery post-deal address, India’s representative Chandni Raina labeled the $300 billion as “paltry” and “an optical illusion” that fails to address the scale of the crisis. Tina Stege, the climate envoy for the Marshall Islands, echoed these sentiments, criticizing the influence of fossil fuel interests on the negotiations. She stated:
"We are leaving with a small portion of the funding climate-vulnerable countries urgently need. Fossil fuel interests have been determined to block progress and undermine the multilateral goals we’ve worked to build."

Key Elements of the Agreement

The focus of COP29 was financial support for developing nations—a politically sensitive but urgent issue. Wealthy countries, historically the largest contributors to climate change, first pledged $100 billion annually by 2020 during the 2009 COP summit. That target was met only in 2022, two years late and widely regarded as insufficient.

The new deal requires industrialized nations, including the United States and European countries, to mobilize $300 billion annually by 2035. This amount will include both public and private financing. Additionally, there is an aspirational goal to scale funding up to $1.3 trillion, though this figure lacks concrete mechanisms for implementation.

Developing countries, represented by the G77 bloc, had demanded at least $500 billion annually. They also advocated for a greater proportion of grants rather than loans, citing fears of increased debt burdens. Richer nations pushed back, citing economic constraints.

Emerging economies such as China and Saudi Arabia faced pressure to contribute to the funding. The final agreement encourages, but does not require, voluntary contributions from these nations. This lack of mandatory commitments has been criticized as a missed opportunity to broaden the responsibility for climate financing.

Li Shuo, director of the China Climate Hub at the Asia Society Policy Institute, called the agreement "a flawed compromise," reflecting the challenging geopolitical environment in which the negotiations took place.

Fossil Fuel Influence and Broader Challenges

The COP29 summit was held in a particularly challenging context. The year is virtually certain to be the hottest on record, with devastating weather events such as hurricanes, floods, typhoons, and droughts underscoring the urgency of climate action. Despite this, the talks were overshadowed by the prominent presence of fossil fuel interests.

Azerbaijan, a petrostate, hosted the summit, and more than 1,700 fossil fuel lobbyists attended—outnumbering the delegations of nearly every individual country. Advocacy groups like Kick Big Polluters Out condemned their influence, arguing that it hindered progress toward ambitious climate goals.

The Path Ahead

While COP29 succeeded in producing a deal, it leaves unresolved questions about how the world will bridge the gap between current commitments and the scale of action needed. For many, the agreement represents a step forward but falls short of the transformative change required to avert the worst impacts of the climate crisis.

As countries prepare for COP30, the pressure will mount on wealthy nations to honor their commitments and on the global community to address the inequities and challenges exposed in Baku. The road ahead remains fraught with difficulty, but the stakes—human lives and the future of the planet—demand nothing less than concerted, ambitious action.

The specter of Donald Trump’s election in the U.S. hung over COP29, with his dismissal of the climate crisis as a hoax, promises to expand fossil fuel drilling, and threats to exit the Paris Agreement raising doubts about global climate action.

Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil exporter, appeared emboldened in Baku, rejecting any mention of oil, coal, or gas in the final deal, further undermining efforts toward ambitious climate goals.

“This has been another shady, oil-stained COP,” said Friederike Otto, a climate scientist at Imperial College London, lamenting low public interest and growing cynicism.

Climate groups voiced strong criticism, with Tasneem Essop of the Climate Action Network stating, "This was supposed to be the finance COP, but the Global North came with a plan to betray the Global South."

Harjeet Singh of the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative called the outcome “false hope,” urging increased financing and accountability for those most affected by climate disasters.