As thousands of government ministers and climate activists descend on Baku, Azerbaijan, for the annual United Nations climate summit known as COP29, they have a tough task ahead of them. Achieving the historic targets set out in the 2015 Paris climate agreement will require rich nations to send large sums of money to poorer nations to help them not only decarbonize but also adapt to climate change. Developing countries tend to be more vulnerable to climate disasters, and everyone agrees that they need help. But no one can agree how much money is needed — or who exactly should oppose it.
This year is the world’s self-imposed deadline for all these countries to agree on a new global target for climate aid. Negotiations on this target will determine how much aid rich developed countries send to poorer developing countries – as well as exactly which countries are considered “developed” and what form their aid will take.
The world has tried this once before. In 2009, rich countries committed to sending $100 billion in climate finance to poorer nations within a decade. They blown by that deadline through several years, and much of the financing provided by the developed world came in the form of debt producing loans rather than the unattached grants benefiting recipients. Relatively little aid went into it countries in Africa and Asia on help them prepare for climate disasters such as drought and sea level rise. Research has shown this as well some contributions appear to be fraudulent or irrelevant to the climate battle.
As the clock runs out on the deadline to set a second target, known in official parlance as the New Collective Quantified Goal, developed countries such as the US and the UK are competing with developing countries such as Somalia and Barbados. tangled over every detail, from the target’s size and timeline to the role of loans and private finance. Ministers are also fighting over the role of countries such as China and the oil-producing states of the Persian Gulf, which have traditionally been considered developing nations but have become much richer in recent decades. (Their carbon emissions grew along with their pocketbooks.)
After more than two years of deadlock over technical questions, government leaders are now racing to hammer out a text in the next few weeks. They will draft this final agreement against a backdrop of high inflation, fragile economic growth and strained government budgets around the world.
The fault lines in this debate are not always intuitive. Each country has its own redline priorities, and many shift their positions from day to day. But there are some core differences that hold up a final consensus. The questions below highlight four different positions clashing in Baku, based on proposals made by countries ahead of the conference. For each, choose one answer that represents how you would approach the issue. At the end, we’ll tell you which country you’re most closely aligned with—or if you’re stuck in the middle.
Naveena Sadasivam contributed reporting to this story.
2 of 7
How do you think the new goal should be divided?
Most climate aid to date has gone to “mitigation” projects to slow future warming, such as solar and wind installations, but developing countries are also seeking money for adaptation projects that will make them resilient to future climate shocks (eg sea walls). Some countries are also pushing for the new goal to include money for “loss and damage” — essentially repairs for climate-driven disasters that have already occurred.
We should try to address everything—mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage—but don’t worry about detailing each category.
We need to address everything but prioritize climate adaptation funding and loss and damage payments, which have been neglected in the past.
We need to set individual goals for mitigation, adaptation, loss and damage, and address the societal impact of the energy transition. But the most important thing is to achieve a big overall goal.
Each country should try to divide their contributions equally between mitigation, adaptation and loss and damage.
Your results
Congratulations! Your plan for international climate aid best suits you:
