While $300 billion per year is clearly insufficient to help developing countries decarbonise their economies quickly, the type of financing is equally critical (details are yet to be determined). In particular, resources should be targeted at removing the high risk that construction projects in less developed countries carry and as a strategy to encourage greater private sector investment. And clearly we cannot afford to wait a decade for this funding to become fully available, as promised.

I welcome the decision to move forward with a global carbon market. However, an international carbon market can either support or hinder rapid decarbonisation depending entirely on the rules that will govern its operations, rules that must ensure additionality and permanence of carbon offsets . While the additional flexibility of an international carbon market is valuable, it is crucial to ensure that it does not divert attention from the primary goal for each country of rapidly reducing its own carbon emissions.

COP29 in Baku ended with two tangible outcomes: a commitment by developed countries to invest at least $300 billion a year in the global fight against climate change and agreement on rules for a UN-backed global carbon market.

As usual at COPs, the results of this one were also less than expected. In particular, with regard to financial assistance to developing countries, the result is less than demanded (more than one trillion dollars).

However, as usual, it is better to look on the bright side: some agreements have been reached and the process of combating climate change is still on track, even if it is making less progress than we would like. As long as there is no better mechanism for combating climate change, we need to keep the one we have alive.

The press release of the final COP29 agreement reflects the prevailing pessimism. It says that the agreement reached ‘defies expectations’, which is absolutely correct because it has been reached under the threat of collapse.

In the end, the agreement mentions the coveted target of providing $1.3 trillion per year (an amount that may seem huge but is derisory in the context of the enormous personal, ecological and material costs of inaction), but explains that countries are committed to ‘channelling’ that finance. In other words, the public funding commitment is only $300 billion a year. The rest? Private funding, uncertain and undetermined. The problem is that the private sector has not so far excelled in achieving these levels of funding and there is no reason to believe that this trend will change. Moreover, private funding depends on public funding to reduce investment risks.

The current funding model reduces the scope for improving resilience. The most effective actions to improve resilience, such as community energy or community-led early warning programmes, depend on public funding.

However, there is also no guarantee that public funding can reach its destination. Only 80% of the COP15 commitment in 2009 ($100 billion per year by 2020) has been met.

The Baku presidency has called this agreement ‘the best possible deal’ and it may well be. It responds not only to ‘geopolitical fragmentation’ but also to a shift in public opinion questioning the need to facilitate a green transition, which is visible not only in the election of Trump, but also in the rise of climate scepticism in political movements around the world. It is up to all of us to change the political environment in which the COP is negotiated.

It has been a complicated COP due to the current geopolitical situation. The big financing target has remained at a minimum: it only triples the existing target of 300 billion dollars by 2035. There has been progress on Article 6, which now allows for the operationalisation of carbon markets.

There has been some progress on loss and damage, with progress on the implementation of the fund. The work programme on the global adaptation goal has made progress in providing guidance in the area of indicators.

As an overall assessment, a COP of minimums and a transition towards COP30.

It is very good news that an agreement has been reached on climate finance, tripling the annual contribution compared to the targets that have been set so far. Although the mechanisms to make the contribution materialise still require technicalities to be finalised, grants, loans and private projects should help countries in the Global South to implement the transition needed to reduce their emissions and adapt to changes in the climate system. However, it is important to take a broad perspective. It should not be forgotten that adaptation is not only a challenge for the Global South and that the Global North still has a lot to do as we have seen in recent climate-related disasters, and that this will also require massive funding and major societal change.

Other important aspects are the agreement on international carbon markets (which will benefit from the agreement on Article 6.4 on standards, a key aspect for markets to develop with the necessary confidence), the continued role of climate in human health on the agenda of the talks, the declarations on reducing methane emissions associated with waste and on the central role of water in adaptation and mitigation measures, and the progress on the implementation of the loss and damage fund.

These are positive signals, but it is crucial to remember that without urgent and sustained reductions in human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, the global warming thresholds set in the Paris Agreement will be exceeded. The 1.5°C threshold will most likely be exceeded in the 2030s and the 2°C threshold will be very difficult to avoid before the end of the century.

Aspirations for COP29 were low from the start. Given this meeting was held in an oil state with an estimated 1,773 fossil fuel lobbyists present, much concern was focused on simply protecting previous hard won concessions.

The gavel came down at lightning speed to pass the New Quantified Goal in Climate Finance, with the President leaving no time for comment and barely making eye contact with the room. Objections immediately followed thick and fast, with India’s negotiator Chandri Nadan calling the agreement to enable USD$300 billion to support poor nations fighting climate change an 'optical illusion', and other nations including Fiji and the Alliance of Small Island States expressing strong objections to insufficient funding, while the EU and Irish Climate Minister argued effectively that a weak agreement was better than no agreement.

The fragile agreement has also not resolved serious concerns that the funds are insufficient and, if delivered in the form of high interest commercial loans, will simply trap vulnerable counties in greater debt.

Cop29 has focused on supporting the adaptation plans of developing countries with recognition of the IPCC 2022 findings that almost half the world lives in climate vulnerable hotspots, where people are 15 times more likely to die from climate impacts.

However, the UN decision making process relies on unanimity and this has been challenged to near breaking point at this COP, with oil states in particular criticised by vulnerable countries for blocking progress.

The task to rebuild trust, and effective multilateral climate processes is now Herculean.

COP29 has focused on one of the most pressing challenges of our time: climate finance. Specifically, how to mobilise the funds needed for climate adaptation and disaster recovery, and, crucially, who should bear the cost. While the differences in perspectives among parties can feel disheartening, it’s important to recognise the value of dialogue. In an increasingly polarised world, constructive discussions often falter, replaced by gridlock and confrontation. COP provides a platform to break through these barriers, fostering conversations that might not otherwise occur. Progress may be slow, but the act of maintaining dialogue is itself a step forward. It’s a reminder that collaboration remains possible, even in the face of daunting global challenges.

Climate change is no longer something vague that might happen in the future - it is already affecting the daily lives of people all across the globe. Extreme weather events, such as fires, floods, and heatwaves, are leaving paths of destruction and causing immense human suffering not just in Australia, but everywhere.

The stakes of these talks are huge for all of us, but especially for low- and middle- income countries who bear the brunt of escalating climate disasters. We need strong commitments to a net-zero transition that build on previous talks rather than undermine them. We need a meaningful, explicit climate finance goal to support projects and programs to deliver climate solutions where they are needed most. This is not just about financial commitments - it’s about climate justice. We have a real opportunity here and it’s not too late to see a meaningful outcome.