The climate finance deal agreed at Cop29 has faced criticism from negotiators of some countries. The deal aims to triple the amount of money given to poorer countries to fight climate change, but it falls short of the $1. 3 trillion requested by developing nations. Instead, it sets a goal of $300 billion annually, with $1. 3 trillion as a target, not a guarantee. Chandni Raina, a negotiator for India, called this amount “abysmally poor” and noted that the process seemed rushed and unfair.

Negotiators from developing countries felt they didn't have enough say in the final agreement. There were reports of last-minute backroom deals and documents being shared selectively. This led to frustration and a sense that their voices were not being heard. The goal of $300 billion by 2035 was seen as insufficient by many, especially since it's just one-fourth of what was initially demanded.

Critics argue that this deal shifts the burden of climate change onto those who are least responsible but suffer the most. Some delegates even walked out of meetings, feeling their interests were ignored. The least developed countries bloc, representing 46 nations and 1. 1 billion people, expressed disappointment, saying their pleas were met with indifference.

While some experts see the deal as a step forward, others call it a “global Ponzi scheme. ” There's a call for fairer ways to tackle the climate crisis, including forcing fossil fuel companies to contribute. In essence, the deal highlights the ongoing struggle to balance climate action with global justice.

Climate Deal at Cop29: Is It Fair for All?

Actions