Reacción a "COP29 agrees rich countries to provide $300 billion to poorer countries for climate finance"

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.