‘The Selfishness of Wealthy Nations Trying to Shirk the Bill for a Climate Crisis They Caused’

Rich industrialised nations caused the climate crisis but are still unwilling to pay for it. 

The COP29 conference was supposed to mark the moment at which they would finally start to shoulder their financial responsibilities, a key step in the fight to combat the climate crisis. 

Instead their refusal to pay up fails poorer nations, who will lack the means to adapt to extreme weather or invest in the clean energy needed to cut emissions. 

But rich nations have damaged their own futures too. By refusing to provide adequate funding to poorer nations they will slow down the clean energy transition. Over time this will raise global temperatures further, cost more lives and natural resources, and make the climate crisis even harder to address. 

The last minute deal left poorer nations with a fraction of the sums needed. Developed nations committed to transfer only $300bn a year to poorer countries by 2035, far below the $1.3tn economists say they need. 

The remainder – supposed to come from the private sector and global taxes on fossil fuels or frequent flyers – is mere theory. Market-based loans in particular risk deepening developing nations’ debt burdens. 

COP President and chair of negotiations, Azerbaijan’s Mukhtar Babayev, admitted the final agreement failed not just developing nations but us all. It falls “far short of the $1tn widely and scientifically agreed to be the minimum needed to avert catastrophic human-made climate change,” he wrote as the summit ended. 

Babayev blamed Western governments, claiming “certain western voices would not shift,” while praising the few ambitious nations, including Britain, which he said has “reassumed global climate leadership” under Labour. 

Developing countries now fear for not just for the future, but for their ability to cope with the extreme weather of today. 

To put that $300bn in perspective, dividing it among the 45 most vulnerable nations would mean each receiving $6.6bn annually. Yet the estimated recovery cost of a single disaster – this year’s historic floods in Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil – was $17bn alone. 

Developing nations have been failed, not by the villains of climate action like Donald Trump, but by global leaders who say the right words but fail to match them with action. 

Many described the outcome as a betrayal. “This [is] a disaster,” said Mohamed Adow, director of Power Shift Africa, a thinktank, “a betrayal of people and planet by wealthy countries who claim to take climate change seriously.” 

To make matters worse rich nations refused to factor in inflation, meaning the $300bn will reduce in value year by year. 

The climate economists who set the $1.3tn benchmark were themselves scathing of the outcome. “It’s more expensive the longer you wait,” said Nicholas Stern, who leads the economists’ group; “kicking the can down the road doesn’t help.” 

Rich countries ignored not just economists, but some of their own leaders who pleaded for more ambition. 

“I have come here to tell you climate change kills,” Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez of Spain told delegates, referring to recent floods in Valencia where more than 220 people were killed by flooding linked to rising temperatures in the Mediterranean.

Simon Stiell, the UN’s climate chief, told leaders to act now to prevent economic damage. “Climate impacts are already ripping shreds out of every G20 economy,” he said. “Without rapid cuts in emissions no economy will be spared economic carnage.” Climate change is “an economy-killer, right now, in this political cycle.”

An academic paper circulated at COP29 echoed the point, arguing climate finance should be seen as an investment driven by cold-blooded economic self-interest, not charity. 

If developed nations provide $2.8tn in grant-equivalent finance for emissions mitigation in developing countries over the next decade, its authors argue, they would gain $7.9tn: a return of 182%. Crucially, this number represents only the economic benefits to the developed nations themselves, not to the world as a whole. 

Instead rich nations are still funding the fossil fuels which drive the crisis. Globally governments spent $620bn subsidising fossil fuels in 2023 – more than double their pledge to support developing nations at COP29, and significantly above the $70 billion spent on clean energy investments in their own countries. Transferring these subsidies to clean energy would transform the climate fight, yet still governments stall. 

Hope comes from two sources. Brazil will host next year’s COP30 presidency. Its lead negotiator in Azerbaijan, Marina Silva, the country’s Minister of Environment and Climate Change, called this year’s outcome “unacceptable”. 

“Our goal for COP30 will be aligning sufficiently ambitious NDCs [emissions reductions commitments] to achieve the 1.5C target,” she said. She promised that next year’s summit in the city of Belém, at the mouth of the Amazon, would rebuild trust between wealthy and poorer nations. 

Marcio Astrini, Executive Secretary of Observatório do Clima, a climate-focused coalition of Brazilian civil society organisations, agreed: “Wealthy countries are shirking responsibility while leaving the financing burden unresolved. COP30, under Brazil’s leadership, must be highly competent and dedicated to filling these gaps, advancing ambition, and keeping the 1.5°C goal alive,” he said.

More broadly, a respected group of senior global leaders issued an open letter to call for an overhaul of the COP process. Its signatories include former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, former President of Ireland Mary Robinson, former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres and other experts representing organisations in the climate sector.

The current COP structure “cannot deliver the change at exponential speed and scale, which is essential to ensure a safe climate landing for humanity,” they write. 

They want COP presidencies restricted to countries truly committed to ambitious climate action, a greater role for scientists and experts, and greater accountability for country-level implementation. Without these changes, they argue, there will only be further delays in tackling the climate crisis.

Given the mediocre outcome of COP29 and the double mindedness of rich nations a shift is essential if climate goals are to be met and catastrophe avoided. Enough compromise, it is time to act.