COP29‘s agenda included suggestions on how to implement critical measures to keep global warming below 1.5°C and resolving how to fund climate adaptation and mitigation efforts. Particularly for nations most vulnerable to climate impacts, such as smaller Island Nations in the Pacific, and larger, so-called underdeveloped Nations in the Global South.
However, instead of celebrating decisive action, COP29 became a focal point of division and frustration, culminating in a united walkout by several nations that are termed developing. One must point out that many of the so-called developing nations were once colonised by the developed nations. Many of which are still financially reliant on foreign aid given to them by their previous colonisers.
The walkout brought the conference to an abrupt halt, with key delegations exiting negotiations amidst what was described as paralysing discord over the $1 trillion climate fund. The fund, intended to support developing nations in their climate efforts, sparked heated debates about who should pay and how the money should be allocated. This disagreement, combined with frustration over procedural delays and perceived inequities, underscores the complexity of global climate negotiations.
According to the Guardian, the central COP29 dispute causing the walkout was the $1 trillion climate fund, which has become a symbol of broken promises and systemic inequities in climate financing. Wealthy nations pledged to mobilise significant funding to aid developing countries—many of which are already facing the devastating impacts of rising temperatures, such as extreme weather events and sea level rise. Yet, as negotiations stretched past the summit’s official deadline, developed countries failed to reach a consensus on how to deliver this financial support.
Developing nations argued that they were being forced to shoulder an unfair burden. As noted in The Guardian, some of the world’s most vulnerable nations accused wealthier states of dragging their feet on financial commitments, pointing out that these countries have historically contributed the most to greenhouse gas emissions. By contrast, industrialised nations expressed concerns about transparency, accountability, and ensuring that funds would be used effectively.
The walkout, as reported by Al Jazeera, was led by a coalition of developing nations, including representatives from Africa, Southeast Asia, and island nations. Their frustrations boiled over after hours of stalled discussions that seemed to sideline their voices. These countries argued that they were being excluded from key decisions and that the summit’s leadership failed to prioritise the urgent needs of those most at risk.
Observers viewed the walkout as both a symbolic protest and a desperate plea for attention. Delegates emphasised that the stakes were too high for procedural delays and half-measures, particularly as many vulnerable nations are already contending with the severe impacts of climate change. This disruption, however, also laid bare the deep divisions between the Global North and South, complicating the path toward a unified global response.
The New York Times highlighted that COP29’s collapse was emblematic of a larger crisis in multilateral climate negotiations. The summit’s failure to produce a clear roadmap for climate financing revealed ongoing tensions about historical responsibility, economic equity, and trust. Many developing countries perceive the existing climate framework as inherently skewed in favour of wealthier nations, while industrialised nations counter that solutions require shared responsibility.
This discord reflects a broader challenge: balancing the immediate needs of climate-vulnerable countries with long-term systemic change. As negotiations faltered, the opportunity to deliver meaningful progress on other critical issues, At COP28, positive discussions were had on issues such as phasing out fossil fuels and enhancing global adaptation measures. Issues that seem to have been forgotten at COP29.
COP29’s breakdown reminds us of the fragile coalition that underpins international climate diplomacy. While walkouts and protests may appear as setbacks, they also underscore the urgency of the crisis and the pressing need for more inclusive, equitable solutions. Climate change doesn’t respect borders, and without unified action, the entire planet risks devastating consequences.
For wealthy and developing nations alike, the stakes are existential. Bridging the divide requires not just financial commitments but a genuine recognition of shared humanity. COP29 may have failed to deliver a consensus, but it has spotlighted the fractures that must be healed for any future progress to be made. The question is no longer whether nations can afford to act, but whether they can afford not to.
In this light, COP29 serves as both a warning and an opportunity. It challenges us to reconsider what equitable climate leadership looks like and to push for a framework that prioritises solidarity over self-interest. If the climate crisis is the defining challenge of our time, its solutions will require unprecedented levels of cooperation, compromise, and courage.
A Curated Lifestyle Magazine Focused on Art, Creativity, Fashion, Books, Interiors, Mindfulness, Travel & Sustainability.
