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 difficult task ahead of them. Meeting the historic targets outlined in the 2015 Paris climate agreement will require wealthy nations to send huge amounts 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 they need assistance. But no one can agree how much money is needed — or who exactly should have to pony up.
This year marks the world’s self-imposed deadline for all these countries to agree on a new global target for climate aid. Negotiations over this target will determine how much aid wealthy developed nations send to poorer developing ones — as well as exactly which countries count as “developing,” 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 blew through that deadline by multiple years, and much of the finance provided by the developed world came in the form of debt-producing loans rather than the no-strings-attached grants favored by recipients. Relatively little aid has gone to countries in Africa and Asia to help them prepare for climate disasters like drought and sea-level rise. Research has also shown that some contributions turned out to be fraudulent or irrelevant to the climate fight.
As the clock runs out on the deadline to set a second target, which is known in official parlance as the New Collective Quantified Goal, developed countries like the U.S. and the United Kingdom are tangling with developing countries such as Somalia and Barbados 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 like China and the oil-producing states of the Persian Gulf, which have traditionally been considered developing nations but have become much wealthier in recent decades. (Their carbon emissions have grown alongside their pocketbooks.)
After deadlocking on technical questions for more than two years, government leaders are now rushing to hammer out a text in the next few weeks. They’ll 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 red-line priorities, and many are shifting their positions from day to day. But there are a few core disagreements that are holding up a final consensus. The questions below highlight four different viewpoints that are clashing in Baku, based on proposals that countries made before the conference. For each, pick one answer that represents how you would tackle the issue. At the end, we’ll tell you which country you align with most closely—or if you’re stuck in the middle.
Naveena Sadasivam contributed reporting to this story.
1 of 7
How large do you think the new climate aid goal should be?
Most studies suggest that developing countries need trillions dollars of climate aid each year, but U.N. negotiators can’t agree on how much they should try to raise. A large target could mean more money for climate action — and more lives saved in developing countries — but it might also be counterproductive if contributing countries think it’s an unrealistic goal.
More than $100 billion per year, but it doesn’t make sense to focus on the overall number.
Around $450 billion per year, primarily supplied by the world’s richest governments, with more from other sources if possible.
Around $1.3 trillion per year combined from rich governments, development banks, and the private sector.
Well over $1 trillion per year, from rich governments alone.
2 of 7
How do you think the new goal should be apportioned?
Most climate aid to date has gone toward “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 (e.g. sea walls). Some countries are also insisting that the new goal include money for “loss and damage” — essentially reparations for climate-fueled disasters that have already happened.
We should try to address everything — mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage — but not worry about the breakdown of each category.
We should address everything, but prioritize funding for climate adaptation and loss-and-damage payments, which have been neglected in the past.
We should set individual goals for mitigation, adaptation, loss and damage, and addressing the social impacts of the energy transition. But the more important thing is meeting a large overall goal.
Each country should try to divide their contributions evenly between mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage.
3 of 7
How strict do you think the goal should be about defining what counts as climate aid?
The first $100 billion aid target was extremely vague about what counts as climate finance, so countries are only now haggling over what kinds of money should count. Some negotiators argue that loans from a country’s private sector should count toward that country’s total contributions, and that new financial instruments like debt swaps and insurance programs should count as well.
The main goal should count all forms of financing, including loans.
The main goal should only count direct support from wealthy countries.
Private sector contributions to climate aid can count toward the overall goal — but only if they reduce developing countries’ debt.
We should be creative about finding new sources of money, but the goal should emphasize direct support from rich governments.
4 of 7
How should loans count toward the new climate finance goal?
Almost 70 percent of the first round of international climate aid came in the form of loans rather than no-strings-attached grants. While wealthy nations and private banks often issue aid loans at below-market interest rates, many recipient countries argue that loans can trap them in a predatory cycle of debt and interest.
While wealthy countries should try not to increase others’ debt burdens, all loans should count, even if they’re at market rates.
We should only count grants and loans that are given at below-market rates.
Funding for energy transition projects can come through loans, but adaptation funding should only come through no-strings-attached grants.
Loans should not count; all climate finance must come through grants.
5 of 7
Which countries do you think should contribute to the new goal?
When the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed in 1992, countries were categorized into two groups: developed and developing. The world has changed a lot since then. While the original “developed” countries bloc is still responsible for a disproportionate share of the world’s historic carbon emissions, emissions in some of the original “developing” countries have risen rapidly (alongside their national incomes).
Only the original countries defined as “developed” in 1992 should have to contribute.
It’s only fair for countries that have become wealthy in recent decades, like China and Saudi Arabia, to pull their own weight.
Countries should contribute based on their share of historic greenhouse gas emissions.
Only countries originally defined as “developed” should have to contribute, but other large economies should be encouraged to donate and document contributions.
6 of 7
Which countries do you think should receive funds from future climate aid?
A core tenet of the 2015 Paris climate accord is that developed countries have a duty to fund the energy transition in developing nations. But under the original definition, the United Arab Emirates — home to the world’s tallest skyscraper and glitzy artificial islands — is still considered “developing.” Some countries have also argued that the very poorest nations and smallest island states should get extra consideration.
All the same countries that were defined as developing under the 1992 agreement.
The same developing countries as they were originally defined, except for those who have become wealthy in recent decades.
The same original group of developing countries, but with support levels indexed to each country’s need and climate ambition.
All developing countries as originally defined, but a larger share of aid should be set aside for small islands and the least developed countries.
7 of 7
Over what period do you think countries should raise funds?
Negotiators are hoping to learn from the lessons of the delayed $100 billion promise: They’re debating whether to set a short-term goal that will play out over just a few years, or a more ambitious goal on a longer timeline.
Wealthy nations should try to deliver a big cumulative total over a longer period of time, perhaps by 2035 or 2040.
Countries should be pushed to meet an ambitious new annual target by 2030, then review it every few years.
Countries should meet the new target immediately and maintain it through 2035, with an option to increase the funding totals in 2030 if necessary.
Countries should set a reasonable annual aid target and meet it from 2025 through 2030.
Your Results
Congratulations! Your plan for international climate aid aligns you most closely with:
