Trump's AG

The $300 billion annual climate finance agreement adopted at COP29 in Baku is a symbolic milestone, but its inadequacies highlight the persistent gaps in addressing the climate crisis.

- 

For developing nations like India, which face disproportionate climate impacts despite contributing minimally to global emissions, this deal feels less like progress and more like a concession to inaction.

At the heart of the criticism is the sheer insufficiency of the promised funding. As India's delegate aptly put it, the agreement appears to be an "optical illusion" that fails to rise to the enormity of the challenge. While the $300 billion target represents an increase from the earlier $100 billion commitment, it is dwarfed by the estimated $1.3 trillion required annually by 2035 to meaningfully address climate change.

For vulnerable countries grappling with rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and loss of livelihoods, the deal offers little assurance. The divisions between industrialised and developing nations were stark throughout COP29 negotiations. Wealthy nations, historically responsible for the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions, were reluctant to commit further amid domestic economic constraints.

On the other hand, many developing countries are left reeling from the escalating costs of storms, floods, and droughts. This deal, despite its headline-grabbing figure, does not include detailed mechanisms to ensure the timely and full delivery of funds – a problem evident in the delayed fulfilment of the $100 billion pledge made in 2009.

Compounding the issue is the reluctance to expand the list of mandatory contributors. Countries like China, now the world's second-largest economy, and oil-rich Gulf states continue to evade binding commitments. This imbalance not only undermines the equity principle of climate negotiations but also limits the pool of available resources.