"Connecting communities, empowering nations: Unifying the Regional and Global Economy ."

The COP29 summit in Baku, Azerbaijan, concluded with a contentious climate finance agreement after intense negotiations. With over 40,000 delegates in attendance, the gathering nearly collapsed over disagreements between developed and developing nations. While the agreement marks an increase in funding commitments, it has left many feeling dissatisfied, with the debate highlighting deeper fractures in global climate governance.

The Agreement: A New Era or an Insufficient Pledge?

Developed nations have committed to providing $300 billion annually by 2035 to help developing countries address climate change impacts. This figure represents a tripling of the previous $100 billion goal, a milestone some hail as a significant step forward. However, it falls far short of the $1.3 trillion annually that UN experts estimate is required to transition to cleaner energy sources and mitigate the damage from extreme weather events.

For small island nations and developing economies, the gap between pledges and actual needs is stark. Representatives from the Alliance of Small Island States even staged a walkout during the negotiations, rejecting the initial $250 billion proposal. Their frustration underscores the inequities in climate finance, where richer nations—historically the largest polluters—continue to dictate terms that many perceive as inadequate and unfair.

The Numbers Behind the Debate

The financial disparity is a critical issue. While $300 billion annually by 2035 is a substantial increase, it pales in comparison to the estimated $5–7 trillion required annually to address climate change comprehensively. For countries already grappling with devastating floods, droughts, and rising sea levels, these funds are critical not just for adaptation but also for transitioning their economies to sustainable models.

This disconnect between funding commitments and actual needs exacerbates the burden on developing nations, which often have to divert their resources to adapt to climate crises. The promise of climate finance remains largely unmet, forcing these nations to rely on insufficient aid while bearing the brunt of a crisis they did not primarily cause.

The Role of Developed Nations: A Betrayal?

Many negotiators and activists have expressed deep frustration with developed nations. Many experts of the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative, called the outcome a betrayal. They emphasized the courage of developing countries that are making bold strides to transition away from fossil fuels despite inadequate support. This sentiment is echoed further as the deal as “insufficient, inadequate, and insulting.”

Developed nations’ reluctance to pay their “fair share” of climate finance is rooted in a historical context of disproportionate emissions. The wealth and industrial growth of these countries have been built on fossil fuels, making their responsibility to fund climate solutions both a moral and practical imperative. Yet, the recurring theme of insufficient pledges and vague commitments continues to frustrate developing nations.

The Return of Donald Trump: A New Era of Uncertainty

The agreement coincides with the re-election of Donald Trump, a staunch climate change skeptic who has previously described it as a hoax. During his first term, Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement, casting doubt on the nation’s commitment to global climate action. His return to power raises questions about the future of U.S. involvement in international climate agreements and whether other nations will step up to fill the potential leadership void.

A Step in the Right Direction or Kicking the Can Down the Road?

Despite its shortcomings, some view the Baku Accord as a step in the right direction. Advocates argue that tripling the previous financial goal signals progress, even if it does not meet all demands. The agreement, however, is non-binding and vague in its specifics, leaving much of the burden on future negotiations.

Critics worry that this incremental progress undermines the urgency of the climate crisis. As experts forecast 2025 to be the hottest year on record, the need for decisive action has never been more apparent. For many, the deal represents a continuation of the status quo: symbolic gestures without substantive change.

The Path Forward

The COP29 summit illustrates the persistent challenges in global climate governance. Bridging the gap between developed and developing nations requires:

1. Legally Binding Agreements: Non-binding pledges often lack accountability. Binding commitments could ensure that financial promises translate into tangible support.


2. Fair Burden Sharing: Developed nations must recognize their historical responsibility and lead in providing adequate funding.


3. Clear and Transparent Mechanisms: Climate finance agreements must be explicit in their terms to prevent misinterpretation and delays.


4. Engagement Beyond Governments: Private sector involvement and innovative financing mechanisms can complement governmental commitments, helping to close the funding gap.


5. Leadership and Unity: With the re-emergence of climate skeptics like Trump, global unity and leadership are critical. Countries must prioritize collective action over national interests.

The COP29 agreement is a reminder of the complexities and political challenges of addressing climate change. While it represents progress in some respects, it also highlights the need for more ambitious, equitable, and actionable solutions. The climate crisis demands nothing less than a transformative approach, one that aligns financial commitments with the scale of the challenge. For now, the world watches and waits to see if COP29’s promises will lead to meaningful change—or become just another missed opportunity.