Young climate and human rights activist and co-founder of Youth for Climate Belgium Adélaïde Charlier lists all that is wrong with the COP29 climate deal that has just been brokered in the Azerbaijan capital of Baku. Seen by many as a symbol of broken trust and climate inequality, COP29 has left vulnerable nations and civil society bitterly disappointed.

The recent COP29 climate conference in Baku has left the world divided, with vulnerable nations and civil society expressing deep frustration over what is seen as a betrayal of trust. While a deal was reached—pledging USD 300 billion annually to help developing countries adapt to climate change by 2035—it falls drastically short of the urgent needs of those on the front lines of the climate crisis.

'No deal is better than a bad deal'

Harjeet Singh, Global Engagement Director with the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, set the tone 24 hours before the final deal was passed: 'No deal is better than a bad deal.' His statement echoed the mounting tension between affected countries, civil society, and wealthier nations. By Sunday, the conference presented a sobering reality with only one financial target: the pledge of ‘USD 300 billion per year by 2035’. This goal is ridiculous as it is far below what the vulnerable nations had collectively called for (USD 1.3 trillion to cover their needs in terms of adaptation, mitigation and addressing loss and damage).

This agreement is tied to the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), which is meant to finance the climate transition in developing countries. While it is three times higher than the USD 100 billion target set in 2009, which was only met two years late in 2022, it is still far from sufficient. The 2009 USD 100 billion commitment would, accounting for inflation, amount to USD 258 billion by 2035, representing a real increase of only USD 42 billion in actual effort. The call from vulnerable nations has been clear: 'Trillions, not billions'.

The structure of the proposed financial objective is just as disappointing as the amount itself. It lacks any specific commitment to public funding mechanisms, such as grants or subsidies, which are critically needed by countries in the Global South.

Additionally, there are no sub-targets to adequately fund mitigation, adaptation, and addressing loss and damage. The lack of a clear focus on adaptation, combined with a disproportionate emphasis on mitigation—primarily financed by multilateral development banks and the private sector—demonstrates an ongoing failure to learn from 2009, where adaptation was significantly underfunded, compounded by the absence of accountability and dedicated financing for loss and damage.

Furthermore, while loss and damage are mentioned, they receive only a vague and superficial reference, rather than being integrated meaningfully into the agreement. The framework also leaves the door wide open for heavy reliance on private financing, including public-private partnerships, de-risked private investments supported by public funds, and fully private investments, which are actively encouraged.

Ignoring historical responsibilities

Beyond the insufficient funding, the deal has exposed deep cracks in climate diplomacy. Wealthier nations have ignored differentiated responsibility—shifting part of the financial burden to vulnerable countries already bearing the brunt of the climate impacts. Nations like India, Cuba, Bolivia, and Nigeria voiced their anger, accusing the rich countries of failing to pay for their historical greenhouse gas emissions.

This disregard has left trust in tatters, with tensions reaching levels unprecedented in the history of the COP negotiations. The current pledge of USD 300 billion pales in comparison to the USD 1 trillion estimated by UN experts as the minimum investment required for developing countries (excluding China) by 2035.

A bad deal under pressure

The world's poorest and most vulnerable nations, including the 45 least developed countries (LDCs) and 40 small island states, ultimately accepted the deal under immense political pressure. The fear of losing any agreement, particularly with the possibility of a Trump presidency threatening future climate progress, forced their hand. For many, it was a bitter compromise: accepting insufficient funding to secure immediate aid.

The price of delay

This 'bad deal' is not just a blow to diplomatic relations; it will have devastating consequences for millions of lives. Vulnerable nations have already been pushed to their limits by extreme weather, rising sea levels, and resource scarcity. Governments in wealthier nations must recognise that investing in climate action now will cost far less than waiting for the increase in the catastrophic bill Nature is making us pay.

The outcome of COP29 leaves a stark reminder: the climate crisis demands bold, urgent action, and justice for those most affected. Without transformative commitments, we are deepening year by year the divides between the global North and South—undermining the very essence of global climate cooperation.

As we look toward COP30, it’s clear that the fight for climate justice is far from over.

Adélaïde Charlier is a 23-year old European climate justice activist, best known as a co-founder of Youth for Climate Belgium and now as a founder of the Bridge organisation (bridging youth and climate politics). She is also a 2024 Forbes 30under30 nominee.