The 29th Conference of the Parties (COP29) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was held in Baku, Azerbaijan, from November 11 to 24, 2024. Set against a backdrop of a year of unprecedented extreme weather events, the resolutions adopted at the conference left delegates from the Global South feeling deeply disheartened as the conference failed to address key demands for equitable climate financing, stringent emissions targets, and stronger commitments from major greenhouse gas emitting nations.

The primary goal of COP29 was to focus on climate finance and establish the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) to guide climate finance efforts beyond 2025. Developing nations in the Global South advocated for an annual contribution of $1.3 trillion – a collective contribution from national governments, international organisations, private sector investments, and multilateral development banks to address challenges related to climate change. Their negotiations with reluctant developed nations from the Global North extended the conference by two days. The final agreement settled on an annual contribution of $300 billion, significantly lower than the requested amount. This amount is insufficient to help developing countries transition away from fossil fuels, adapt to climate change, and cope with the loss and damage caused by climate disasters.

During the COP15 in 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark, developed countries pledged to mobilise $100 billion annually by 2020 to assist developing nations in addressing the challenges of climate change, focusing on both mitigation and adaptation. This commitment was a significant part of the 2010 Cancun Agreements, which also established the Green Climate Fund (GCF) to facilitate funding for these initiatives.

The $100 billion target was reaffirmed in subsequent agreements, including the 2015 Paris Agreement, which extended the commitment through 2025. However, it was not until 2022 that developed countries met this target for the first time, mobilising approximately $115.9 billion in climate finance for developing countries. Despite this achievement, a substantial portion of the funding – about 69% – was provided as loans, many of which were not on concessional terms but rather at market rates. In contrast, only 28% of the mobilised funds were grants, with minimal equity investments included.

In recognition of the growing financial needs far surpassing the $100 billion target to help developing countries combat climate change, the term New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) emerged in the climate finance discourse. This ambitious goal was designed to supersede the $100 billion annual climate finance commitment established in 2009, setting the stage for a more robust and equitable financial framework to address the escalating challenges of global climate action.

According to estimates from the UNFCCC, developing countries require between $5 trillion and $6.9 trillion to implement their national climate plans by 2030. This equates to an annualised cost of approximately $455 billion to $584 billion, a scenario highlighting the significant financial gap that must be addressed to achieve meaningful climate action in these nations.

While the developing countries demanded grant-based public financing amounting to a total of $1.3 trillion annually, the COP 29 negotiations settled for $300 billion, which the developing countries criticised as an insufficient amount. Deeply disappointed with the pledged amount, India described it as 'too little too distant' on behalf of the countries of the Global South. India went on to call it a 'paltry sum' describing it as a "little more than an optical illusion." India regarded adopting the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) to mobilise only $300 billion annually by the developed countries as completely and essentially at odds with the principles of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR). Given their historical contributions to greenhouse gas emissions, these principles mandate that developed nations assume greater responsibility for financing climate action.

Between 1751 and 2017, the world emitted over 1.5 trillion tonnes of CO2, with the United States and the European Union collectively accounting for 47% of these emissions. The United States remains the largest historical emitter of CO2. In comparison, China's share of emissions stands at 12.7%, Russia's at 6%, Japan's at 4%, and India's at 3%. On a regional scale, Europe is responsible for 33% of global CO2 emissions, while North America and Asia each contribute 29%. Africa and South America account for just 3% each, and Oceania contributes a mere 1%.

Beyond the percentages, the data on per capita emissions further emphasises the fairness of the CBDR principle. Higher per capita emissions in developed countries, compared to the lower rates in developing nations, highlight the former's disproportionate historical responsibility in contributing to global climate change and, therefore, their greater responsibility in financing climate action.

All the same, $300 is a significant increase from the $100 billion commitment agreed to in 2010. This $300 billion is to be mobilised through a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources. The diversity of these funding sources raises questions about the reliability and timeliness of their transfer. Since there is no clarity on the disbursal of these funds, there is a strong likelihood that the major part of them will reach the most vulnerable countries primarily as loans and other financial instruments rather than grants, potentially trapping them in a cycle of debt.

This financial assistance must be provided as grants and not loans to circumvent the debt trap that can severely limit their capacity to invest in climate resilience and adaptation. In 2022, 58 of the world's poorest and most climate-vulnerable countries spent $59 billion repaying debts, while they received only $28 billion in climate finance, with over half of that amount being loans. This stark contrast highlights the financial strain these countries face and highlights the urgent need for grant-based funding to avoid deepening their debt burdens.

Donald Trump's re-election as President of the United States in 2024, the world's largest emitter of CO2, is likely to significantly impact global climate action and climate financing. Trump, who denies the existence of global warming and climate change, has frequently referred to the discourse surrounding climate change and climate action as a 'hoax' and a 'scam.' Driven by his mantra of 'drill, baby, drill,' he advocates for increased fossil fuel extraction.

Therefore, during his first term in office from 2017 to 2021, Trump not only rolled back nearly all climate regulations in the country but also withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement—an action he has pledged to repeat in his second term to reverse the climate action policies of the Biden administration.

Under Trump's leadership, the United States is likely to increase its fossil fuel production, contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, sideline investments in clean energy technologies, and refuse to contribute to climate financing. This could encourage other countries to follow suit, potentially becoming a major obstacle to climate financing.

As of now, the world can only hope that Trump's own Republican Party and the international community will have enough influence not only to resist his aggressive stance on these issues but also to convince him to reconsider, ensuring that rational decision-making prevails. What the global community truly needs is a United States that engages positively and actively with the global climate discourse, taking a leadership role in shaping discussions on financing mechanisms and emissions targets and fostering international collaboration.

A constructive US presence is essential to driving meaningful progress in combating climate change, achieving sustainable global solutions, and moving beyond the disappointments of the Global South at COP29. The future must envision a world where the people of the Global South and Global North regard each other not as competitors or adversaries but as partners—united as stewards of planet Earth. Together, they can heal the world of its ailments and restore it to its original, healthy state, ensuring a sustainable and equitable legacy for generations to come.