It is impossible to ignore the permanent shadow that the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) will cast on the reputation of COP29. With this COP dubbed the “Finance COP,” expectations were high for developed nations to increase their annual climate finance commitments from the $100 billion initially agreed upon in 2009 and finally achieved in 2022. The NCQG was intended to set a new target for annual climate finance by 2030, with research suggesting that a figure as high as $1 trillion would be required annually (source: WRI).

As negotiations dragged into overtime, optimism waned. Delegates from the Association of Small Island States (AOSIS) walked out in protest over a proposed $250 billion goal, calling it a betrayal to vulnerable nations (source: BBC). The eventual agreement of $300 billion annually by 2035 was widely criticized. Developing nations like India voiced strong objections, calling the rushed deal inadequate, while economists highlighted that the deal’s failure to account for inflation further eroded its effectiveness (source: New York Times, The Guardian).

In contrast, COP29 made unexpected progress on Article 6 – the mechanism for trading emissions reductions. After nearly a decade of negotiations, this agreement provides a  framework for emissions trading under the Paris Agreement to support nations in meeting their nationally determined contributions (NDCs). This deal will have wide-ranging repercussions in the voluntary carbon markets, which will likely adapt to mirror many principles from the Article 6 framework (although the voluntary markets will not be bound to this framework). Unfortunately, the deal on Article 6 did fall short of establishing robust accountability standards, particularly for credits with data inconsistencies (source: Carbon Market Watch).

The outcomes of COP29 reveal a pattern of imperfection. Some negotiators argued that no deal would have been better than an imperfect one, but the COP presidency prioritized securing agreements at all costs. The presidency wields considerable power, from setting agendas to managing the release of draft texts ahead of negotiations. Critics noted that this COP’s logistical mismanagement and opaque processes contributed to rushed, late night agreements that many parties accepted under duress.

It is worth questioning whether COP29’s deals might have been more comprehensive and less hurried if managed by a host country more committed to climate urgency. The Azerbaijani president’s opening remarks, referring to oil as a “gift from God” (source: BBC), underscored the nation’s friction with the conference’s goals.

Still, the blame cannot rest solely on logistical failings. Developed nations have consistently shirked their responsibilities in addressing the climate crisis. The $300 billion financing commitment is far below what is needed, and the inability of wealthier countries to push for a higher target is disheartening.

Looking ahead, 2025 will be a pivotal year for climate action. Nations will submit updated NDCs, the U.S. faces federal leadership hostile to climate initiatives, and COP30 will convene in Brazil’s Amazon Rainforest. Whether these milestones bring progress or further frustration remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the urgency for meaningful climate action has never been greater.