COP29 raises climate finance to $300 billion a year, India says ‘optical illusion’
Calling the proposed amount of $300 billion a year an "optical illusion", an Indian representative at COP 29 said that it wouldn't address the real climate challenges and added that it reflects the unwillingness of the developed country parties to fulfil their responsibilities.
After a complex negotiation at the climate finance in Baku during COP 29, countries adopted a $300 billion a year global finance target on Sunday to help poorer nations cope with the impacts of climate change.
However, developing countries strongly opposed not only the amount agreed upon but also the manner in which the agreement was adopted. As per the final official draft by UNFCC, the central focus of COP 29 was on bringing together nearly 200 countries in Baku and reaching a breakthrough agreement that will triple the public finance to developing countries from the previous goal of $100 billion annually to $300 billion annually by 2035.
Countries will secure efforts of all actors to work together to scale finance to developing countries from public and private sources to the amount of $1.5 trillion per year by 2035, the official draft said. At the COP 29 meeting, India raised the concerns of the developing countries and rejected the deal, saying it did not reflect the priorities of the developing nations.
Calling it an COP29 raises climate finance to $300 billion a year, India says ‘optical illusion’ that wouldn’t address the real climate challenges, India also raised objections to the adoption of the final deal. “We are disappointed in the outcome which brings out the unwillingness of the developed country parties to fulfil their responsibilities,” Indian representative Chandani Raina said.
“I regret to say that this document is nothing more than an optical illusion. This, in our opinion, will not address the enormity of the challenge we all face. Therefore, we oppose the adoption of this document,” she added.
KEY OUTCOMES OF COP 29
A $300 billion annual finance goal by 2035 was set, aiming for a $1.3 trillion overall focus on grants and public funds for vulnerable countries. As per the negotiated COP29 deal, progress will be reviewed periodically, with key reports in 2026 and 2027, and a decision review in 2030.
National climate plans due in 2025 will be the real measure of progress. In addition, the UK aims to reduce emissions by 81 per cent from 1990 levels by 2035, the text mentioned.
Other major economies need to follow the UK’s lead to make real progress in reducing fossil fuel use. A deal on government-to-government carbon markets was reached at COP29, ending years of deadlock, it said.
Meanwhile, the United Nations Secretary-General Ant³nio Guterres in his closing statement said, “I had hoped for a more ambitious outcome – on both finance and mitigation – to meet the great challenge we face. But this agreement provides a base on which to build. It must be honoured in full and on time. Commitments must quickly become cash.”
Speaking on the COP outcomes, Aarti Khosla, Director of Climate Trends said, “The decision to have a new climate finance goal that replaces the 100 billion dollars per year has been marred with the difficulties of squeezing any money out of the developed world, which is under obligation to provide resources.
The 300b from all sources by 2035 remains uncertain and unclear but the best possible in times of geopolitical tensions existing across the world. The final agreement was objected to by India. It has been inadequate in the amount of funding and a tough pill to swallow. However, finer elements like setting aside funds for least-developed countries are slight progress. Climate is a matter of life and death for some countries.”
Dipak Dasgupta, author of IPCC AR6 WG3 and UNEP EGR said, “Hope was the last item remaining in Pandora’s box. The $300 billion agreed, if firmly in form of a grant or highly concessional public money from developed countries as a group and not from loans from MDBs or private sources, as was also agreed, is welcome.
That would make a difference. Second, if the goal of $1.3 trillion remains firmly intact, again as agreed, and to be now spelt out concretely in the Baku to Belem roadmap, that is welcome, especially as it incorporates many other critical paragraphs spelt out explicitly in the agreement—from first loss to guarantees and other innovative financing, and to search for additional climate financing revenue instruments.”