Yeter Ada Seko
28 November 2024•Update: 28 November 2024
ISTANBUL
Laurie van der Burg, global public finance campaign manager at Oil Change International, condemned the decision by advanced nations during the 29th Conference of the Parties (COP29) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to allocate at least $300 billion annually for climate finance, labeling it a "scam."
"If rich countries put their hoarded trillions on the table instead of making excuses, we’d see real progress on fossil fuel phase-out.
"The US, EU, and UK show sickening indifference while millions pay with their lives. We will not give up," van der Burg declared.
Over the 29-year history of COP, multiple climate funds have been established, but their inability to meet the financing needs generated by the climate crisis has drawn criticism.
COP29, held in the Azerbaijani capital Baku, concluded on Nov. 24, two days later than planned, following prolonged debates over the new climate finance target.
Reactions
The final text from COP29 acknowledged the diversity of climate funds, including the Adaptation Fund, the Least Developed Countries Fund, and the Special Climate Change Fund, while urging all parties to contribute to these initiatives.
Criticism of the COP29 decision centered on the significantly lower-than-expected financing amount, as developing nations had advocated for a target close to $1 trillion. Observers also highlighted that contributions to these funds remained voluntary and that a portion of the financing consisted of loans rather than direct aid.
Speaking to Anadolu, Rachel Cleetus, policy director with the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, characterized the decisions as a major regression compared to those made at COP28.
Expressing dismay at the agreed-upon financing figure, Cleetus accused wealthy nations, including the US and EU, of using coercive tactics at COP29 to push through a substandard climate finance package that undermines the scientific goals of the Paris Agreement.
Despite their outsized role in driving the climate crisis, this bloc of nations proposed an inadequate $300 billion annual target, paired with a weak review provision set for five years, she added.
Tasneem Essop, Executive Director of Climate Action Network (CAN), described the summit as “the most horrendous climate negotiations” due to the "bad faith" exhibited by developed nations.
"This was meant to be the finance COP, but the Global North turned up with a plan to betray the Global South," Essop remarked.
Teresa Anderson, Climate Justice Lead at ActionAid International, criticized the final agreement, stating: "This text is not worth the paper it’s written on."
She emphasized that almost none of the demands from frontline nations were addressed, noting that while the figures might superficially appear higher than the previous $100 billion climate finance target, the agreement is largely structured around loans.
*Writing by Serdar Dincel
