“Trump ate my climate finance homework”: No more excuses for Global North in Baku

“Is COP29 dead after the Trump win?” a journalist asked me a few days ago, after news hit that former gameshow host Donald Trump had swept the polls to win a second, non-consecutive term as President of the United States. Aside from the fact that it was a leading question, it was puzzling to me because it followed a string of narratives about how this was a particularly inconsequential COP.

A few reasons cited for this

• It is going to be hard to follow in the footsteps of the high-profile United Arab Emirates’ PR machinery-fuelled COP28

• Azerbaijan’s credibility as a host, given that they are a fossil fuel producer country and one with a concerning human rights record

• Few people of “consequence” are going and many world leaders are not attending

• Too many geopolitical distractions: US elections and another Trump Presidency, the G20 Summit, multiple wars, the collapse of the German government and so on 

It felt to me, going in, that we were treating this serious and important multilateral negotiation process like a Taylor Swift concert, tracking footfall and thereby prejudging its failure or success. I could feed conspiracy theories about how perhaps this COP may have been deliberately discredited by global narrative shapers because they wanted to shift attention from this moment when developed countries need to open up their wallets and pay up for their historical greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution. 

However, another perspective is that there may be a real concern about the absence of major leaders — when they do not show up in force, it may mean that their finance ministries also do not have a strong mandate from home to commit some chunk of the trillions being demanded. In other words, the fact that many haven’t shown up to this concert may be symbolic of a real unseriousness with which developed countries are treating this issue.

What was surprising to me was the juxtaposition of this narrative of a (prejudged) failed COP, with how long it’s been known that this is the year that the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) will be determined. Surely it cannot come as a surprise to the Western hegemons and their allies that they needed to get their budgets in order to commit new and additional climate money by the end of 2024 to help their poorer neighbours cope with climate devastation? 

In 2015, within the paragraphs of the Paris Agreement, it was decided that a NCQG would be decided before 2025, as a successor to the $100 billion target. Between 2022 and 2024, no fewer than 11 Technical Expert Dialogues, two High Level Ministerials and three negotiations under an ad hoc work programme were held to deliberate on what can go into the NCQG. Hundreds of hours of analysis and discussion, preparation, estimation of needs and sources of finance — none of this has been done in haste. In fact, climate experts and experienced observers have commented that this is the most important COP to take place since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015.

Why, then, do we find ourselves at the beginning of week two of a crucial two-week long summit, with no credible offers on the table and wide divergences on crucial issues of substance such as the structure of the new goal and the quality of finance? It seems to me that the Global North is blaming wide-ranging geopolitical struggles — many that are of their own doing — for not doing their homework on time and being ready to negotiate in good faith at this crucial moment that developing countries have been waiting for. 

The unwillingness of developed countries to engage seriously on the stickiest issues reeks of hypocrisy and underhanded deception. Since November 11, when the G77 and China bloc opened COP29 with a powerful intervention, laying out their demands and uniting behind a figure of $1.3 trillion per year as their collective ask, we have seen little movement in the negotiations. 

Here is what is clear:

• The countries that have contributed the least to the climate crisis tend to suffer the most from its impacts. 

• The developing countries of the world require huge amounts of new and additional funding for climate action — that is, to transition their economies away from fossil fuels and also adapt to climate impacts. Their limited public budgets are stretched — they have to prioritise meeting various basic developmental goals, or paying off huge external debts, or both. 

• According to various analyses, an annual mobilisation of between $1-2 trillion — barely about 1 per cent of global gross domestic product (GDP) — can meet developing countries’ immediate climate requirements. This will help them meet their developmental priorities — building infrastructure, providing health and education services, improving energy access — while also switching to greener technologies. 

• Most importantly, the latter part mentioned above will help them to show more climate ambition in the coming years — that is, gradually take on higher emissions reduction targets for their economy, aim for higher penetration of green technologies in their energy mix, transportation and industrial production and improve the resilience of their infrastructure and people to withstand climate impacts. 

The importance of the last bullet cannot be overemphasised. There have been increasing calls in the multilateral climate regime for developing countries to show more climate ambition, take on higher emission cuts. Yes, you heard that right; the rich world wants the poor world to promise to make the green switch harder and faster, in the backdrop of a climate crisis that the latter did not cause. 

Barring the blatant injustice of this demand, this switch cannot happen without additional funding (and technology transfer and capacity building). You will hear these calls ramp up as new Nationally Determined Contributions are due in the coming months; you will hear talk of how coal is killing the planet (but silence on oil and gas), how we are all in this together (no, there are polluters and there are victims), how keeping 1.5 degrees Celsius within reach must be a global effort (no, polluters must lead the way). 

None of that is remotely feasible without credible climate finance on the table to enable it. And there is enough money in the developed world to support this transition; it is simply misallocated to priorities that do not serve the planet. 

Like a teenager blames their dog for allegedly eating their homework — an excuse that incredulous teachers around the world are well acquainted with — rich countries need to stop blaming Trump, Russia, inflation, immigrants, Obama, their friend at the playground, and whoever or whatever else and show up with a credible offer of non-debt creating, new and additional climate finance, in the trillions this week. In an atmosphere where trust is eroded in the multilateral process, the NCQG is one of the last opportunities for the Global North to course correct, show courage and pay its fair share.