Five key takeaways from COP29

COP29 is over, with developing countries complaining that the $300bn (about £240bn) a year in climate finance they will receive by 2035 is a “paltry sum”.

Many of the rich country voices at the UN’s climate conference were amazed that developing nations were unhappy with what on the surface seems a huge settlement. It is an improvement – on the current contribution of $100bn (£79.8bn) a year.

However, the developing world, which had pushed for more, had many genuine issues with the final sum.

There were complaints it simply was not enough and that it was a mixture of grants and loans. And countries were deeply annoyed by the way the wealthy waited until the last minute to reveal their hand.

“It’s a paltry sum,” India’s delegate Chandni Raina told other delegates, after the deal had been gavelled through.

“This document is little more than an optical illusion. This, in our opinion, will not address the enormity of the challenge we all face.”

Ultimately, the developing world was compelled to accept it, with many rich countries pointing to next year’s arrival of President Donald Trump, a known climate sceptic, and arguing that they would not get a better deal.

But this package is also being criticised as short-sighted from the richer world’s perspective.

The argument runs that if you want to keep the world safe from rising temperatures, then wealthier nations need to help emerging economies cut their emissions, because that is where 75% of the growth in emissions has occurred in the past decade.

New national plans are due to be published next spring to outline how every country will limit their planet warming gases over the next 10 years.

A more generous cash settlement at COP29 would undoubtedly have had a positive knock-on effect on those efforts.

And at a time of geopolitical uncertainty and distraction, keeping countries united on climate should be critical. The big fight over money re-opened old divisions between rich and poor, with an anger and bitterness I have not seen in years.

Shepherding 200 countries to an intricate deal on climate finance was always going to be a tough task. But for hosts Azerbaijan, a country with no real history of involvement in the COP process, it proved to be almost beyond them.

The country’s president, Ilham Aliyev, did not help matters by describing oil and gas as a “gift from God”. His blunt attacks – accusing “Western fake news media”, charities and politicians of “spreading disinformation” – did not improve matters.

Azerbaijan follows Egypt and the United Arab Emirates as the third authoritarian state in a row to host COP, raising concerns about how host countries are selected.

Azerbaijan, like the UAE, has an economy which is built on oil and gas exports, which seems at odds with a process that is meant to be helping the world transition away from coal, oil and gas.

Privately, many senior negotiators spoke of their frustration with what some termed the worst COP in a decade. Half-way through the meeting, several senior climate leaders wrote a public letter saying COP was not fit for purpose and calling for reform.

With the role of the US in future climate talks in doubt because of Trump, attention shifted to who might become the real climate leader in the expected absence of the US over the next four years.

The natural successor is China.

The world’s largest carbon emitter was largely silent at this year’s COP, only showing its hand to give details for the first time on the amount of climate finance it gives to developing countries.

China is still defined by the United Nations as a “developing” country, meaning it has no formal obligation to cut greenhouse gas emissions or provide financial help to poorer countries.

However, China has agreed to a formula in the finance deal that would allow its contributions to be counted in the overall fund for climate-vulnerable countries, on a voluntary basis.

All in all, a move that is being seen as very deft and effective.

“China is becoming more transparent about its financial support to global south countries,” said Li Shuo, from the Asia Society Policy Institute.

“This should propel the country to play a larger role in the future.”

Although he was not there, Trump’s presence was felt across COP.

One common element among the negotiators in Baku was the need to ensure that a second Trump administration would not upend years of careful climate negotiations.

So it was no surprise to see that richer nations wanted to commit to raising funding by 2035. They believe putting that date will allow the US to contribute again once Trump has left office.

Similarly, the drive to increase the contributor base was done with Trump in mind.

Bringing China to the table, even in a voluntary capacity, will be used to show that it is worth engaging in international forums like COP.

“No-one thinks Trump in the White House will be anything but damaging to the multilateral climate regime,” said Prof Michael Jacobs, visiting senior fellow at the think tank ODI Global.

“But this agreement was about trying to limit the damage as much as possible.”

One very noticeable trend at COP29 was the sometimes more aggressive stance taken by many environmental NGOs and campaigners.

I witnessed it myself when US climate envoy John Podesta was chased out a meeting area with chants of “shame” ringing in his ears.

Many developing countries rely on these NGOs for support in dealing with complex events like COP.

During the talks, there was a strong push from many of these campaigners for an outright rejection of almost any deal.

Similarly, in the final plenary when all countries accepted the finance text, there were brash cheers when speakers from several nations spoke out against the agreement, after the gavelling.

Will confrontational activism and fraught debate become the new norm at a diplomatic climate conference?

We will have to wait for the next COP to see.