Basic

COP29 ended with a target to triple the flow of money to the poorest and most climate-vulnerable countries by 2035. Rich and high-emitting nations agreed to pay US$300 billion a year to help developing countries transition to green energy, adapt to extreme weather and recover from mounting disasters. This falls far short of what research suggests is needed, says climate finance expert Jodi-Ann Jue Xuan Wang at the University of Oxford, and will actually increase debt in the developing world.

Some blamed the disappointing finance deal on the US election of Donald Trump, who climate scientist Mark Maslin (UCL) says is not expected to contribute to climate funds. Maslin’s team, which includes infrastructure engineer Priti Parikh and international development expert Simon Chin-Yee, noted “another win for the fossil fuel industry” at the talks, as Saudi Arabia succeeded in having fossil fuels, the main agents of climate change, removed from the negotiating text.

The 2015 Paris agreement proposed a global market for trading carbon supervised by the United Nations. In Baku, countries finally agreed the rules and standards that would allow a coal power plant operator in Australia to buy carbon offsetting credits from a plantation in Peru. However, senior research fellow Kate Dooley at the University of Melbourne thinks the agreement opens the door to faulty carbon accounting – and could see Indigenous peoples evicted from their land.

Jacqueline Peel, a professor of climate change law at the University of Melbourne says that extreme weather in 2024 made clear the urgency of the climate crisis. While lamenting the poor outcome of COP29, she adds: “This year’s talks were still a step forward, affirming international climate cooperation at a time of significant geopolitical tensions globally.”