COP29 has ended with an agreement to provide an increased level of finance for the developing world to decarbonise. Yet this figure is dwarfed by the ongoing level of subsidy for fossil fuels - $7 trillion annually according to the IMF.

If Australia is to host a successful COP it must break the hold of the fossil fuel industry on climate outcomes.

Each year Australia’s exported emissions from coal, oil and gas are double those of our entire domestic consumption. If combined with domestic emissions, Australia contributes 3-4% of global emissions.

If we count emissions from coal export, Australia is the sixth-largest emitter in the world, behind China, the USA, India, Russia and Japan, making us a key driver of climate change.
At the very least, the Albanese government should find a way to cease subsidising fossil fuels, (US$29b pa) and impose a tax on the industry that reflects their true contribution to harm, and remove them from decision making fora.

The really big issue was the resolution on Climate Certification which followed up on the UN Report Integrity Matters. The resolution potentially undercuts those who are seeking to claim they are going net zero by choosing to do offsets, but are in fact just greenwashing. Those looking for a few offsets in the built environment sector tell me there are virtually none left after big fossil fuel companies have grabbed them. 

There will now be a UN System of Carbon Credits with much stronger mechanisms to define and manage the offsets and a new Country to Country Trading Scheme. No doubt there will be holes found in these schemes, but they are likely to be much more transparent and subject to serious review than the private markets have been. Serious commitments to net zero, with integrity defined and checked, are likely to be given the kind of support the world of finance is looking for.

The net zero sector is now charging ahead with over $2 trillion now invested, 70% from the private sector. Perhaps the new Certification Resolution will help push this even faster.

It is remarkable that substantive progress could be achieved at COP29. These are tough times for long-term issues other than security, and especially in a UN forum, given the state of the world: Trump and the rise of right-wing populist parties elsewhere, rising geopolitical tensions, and pervasive cost-of-living pressures. Getting a deal on finance in that context is something.

Climate Finance has always been the most controversial issue in global climate negotiations. Progress made on the finance issue is substantive, even though it falls well short of ultimate long term climate finance needs for developing countries. The goal of $300 billion per year by 2035 in climate finance for developing countries is certainly not “paltry”. It is nearly 1% of current global GDP, or 2% of rich countries’ GDP, and it is larger than total global official development aid.

As usual under the UNFCCC, agreement was only possible through vagueness. The money is to come “From a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources”, so a very wide range of financing could be counted.  And crucially it leaves undefined who will provide how much, other than “developed country Parties taking the lead”. The wording leaves the door open for industrializing countries like China to also be contributors – as they to some extend already do, and should do more of.

Ultimately what is needed is new broadly accepted norms on what amount of climate finance rich countries should provide. A logical element would be that the richer a country, the greater percentage of GDP it should provide. And perhaps deals could emerge among smaller groups of like-minded countries: rich countries that are willing to provide, and developing countries that are willing to use the money productively, including to reduce emissions in addition to adapting to climate change impacts.

The wording “Transitioning away from fossil fuels” from the Global Stocktake at last year’s COP28 was not reflected in COP29 decisions, instead it was kicked down the road to COP30 in Brazil and intersessional meetings in Bonn mid-year. It’s an illustration of just how tough some large fossil fuel interests such as those by Saudi Arabia play in global forums.

Via resolution of outstanding Article 6 issues, COP29 delivered an international standard for carbon credits that is aligned with the Paris Agreement. This could become important for some countries that produce and export lots of credits, and others that might pay for them and rely on them to achieve their targets. But carbon markets seem unlikely to become a mainstay of global climate efforts, unless a lively trade in credits for removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere were to develop. That would be quite some time down the track on the road to net-zero emissions.

While US$300 billion annually is clearly insufficient to enable developing nations to decarbonize their economies in a timely manner, the type of funding provided is equally critical - details yet to be worked out. Particularly, resources need to be directed toward de-risking projects during their early stages of development to encourage larger investment from the private sector. And, clearly, we cannot afford to wait a decade for this funding to be fully available, as currently promised.
 
I am pleased to see the decision to move forward with a global carbon market. However, an international carbon market can either support or hinder rapid decarbonization depending entirely on the detailed rules that govern its operations, rules that need to ensure the additionality and permanence of the carbon offsets.

While the added flexibility of an international carbon market is valuable, it is crucial to ensure it does not divert attention from the primary goal of each country to rapidly reduce its own carbon emissions.

Given the current precarious state of multilateral relations and how close COP-29 came to failure, we should take some comfort that a $300bn deal was struck. 
 
The global challenge to date has been to deliver on prior COP commitments so the main focus from here should be on getting the funding flowing to where it can have most effect. 
 
The outcome emphasises that keeping global warming within 1.5C of pre-industrial temperatures is rapidly slipping away from us - which makes it more important than ever to reduce emissions.
 
In Australia we need to accelerate our adaption efforts and take practical steps to help us cope with living in a hotter and less predictable climate. The fact that we can’t agree it’s a dumb idea to have black or dark roofs in this climate tells us how far we have to go. 
 
I take comfort from the investment we are seeing in emergency services by statement governments. Investing in adaptation is a way Australia can stay true to our commitment to multilateral institutions while doing things that directly assist Australians cope with a hotter and less predictable world.

The framing of climate finance was at the forefront in the closing plenary of COP29 on Sunday morning (AEDT). As Pakistan put it, “it isn’t charity, it is a moral obligation.” There was strong disagreement and displeasure about the call from some countries for private sector finance, and ultimately the USD300 billion per year by 2035 deal negotiated in Baku will not be sufficient to build resilience to the impacts of climate change. The health impacts of climate change continue to mount, and the disappointing financial commitments must be built upon urgently in 2025 and beyond, if we have any hope of protecting human lives.

The negotiations on the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) have progressed on the importance of the indicator work to continue after COP29. The discussions in Baku focused particularly on the timelines for indicator work, whether Means of Implementation (MOI) were to be included in indicators, and whether Transformational Adaptation should be considered as part of the indicator work and the GGA. These decisions are significant as they set up how the global community will report on adaptation progress, with key links also to national adaptation plans.

COP29 has become known as the 'Finance COP'. Representatives from different countries in the world will set a new global climate finance target.  However, it’s essential that representatives not only significantly increase the total amount of climate finance, but specify the timeframe and terms of its provision; what the finance will support; how it will reach the communities that need it most, such as conflict-affected communities; and how all climate finance will be assessed. 

Conflict-affected communities often face overlapping crises: violence, displacement, and climate change. Yet, these communities frequently face barriers to accessing climate finance due to perceptions of instability and heightened risk. This exclusion perpetuates cycles of vulnerability and undermines global efforts to build resilience where it is needed most. Australia, as a country with a strong history of humanitarian support, is uniquely positioned to contribute to equitable and conflict-sensitive approaches to climate finance.

By advocating for frameworks that prioritise transparent, targeted, and timely funding mechanisms, Australia can help ensure that no community is left behind. COP29 represents a significant moment to redefine climate finance as a tool for addressing systemic inequities. Prioritising support for conflict-affected communities is not just a moral imperative; it is a necessary step toward sustainable global resilience 

COP29 has focused on one of the most pressing challenges of our time: climate finance. Specifically, how to mobilise the funds needed for climate adaptation and disaster recovery, and, crucially, who should bear the cost. While the differences in perspectives among parties can feel disheartening, it’s important to recognise the value of dialogue. In an increasingly polarised world, constructive discussions often falter, replaced by gridlock and confrontation. COP provides a platform to break through these barriers, fostering conversations that might not otherwise occur. Progress may be slow, but the act of maintaining dialogue is itself a step forward. It’s a reminder that collaboration remains possible, even in the face of daunting global challenges.

To phase out over 1700GW of coal-fired power stations in Asia presents one of the biggest challenges for the world to achieve net zero by mid-century. Health, environmental, as well as economic benefits of moving away from coal are widely acknowledged. There have been many lessons learned from countries in Asia and around the globe to reduce the use of coal, yet its challenges, opportunities and possible pathways still need to be better understood by policymakers, financiers, utilities, and communities affected.

To address this grand challenge will require political leadership and commitment, technical expertise and local capacity, policy and market measures, financial resources and innovation. Governments and financial institutions need to act now to stop coal subsidies and financial flows into coal assets, including coal exports. Scaling up investments into clean energy, energy storage, and grid connectivity will help a smoother coal transition into a clean energy future that our children and future generations deserve.

Climate change is no longer something vague that might happen in the future - it is already affecting the daily lives of people all across the globe. Extreme weather events, such as fires, floods, and heatwaves, are leaving paths of destruction and causing immense human suffering not just in Australia, but everywhere.

The stakes of these talks are huge for all of us, but especially for low- and middle- income countries who bear the brunt of escalating climate disasters. We need strong commitments to a net-zero transition that build on previous talks rather than undermine them. We need a meaningful, explicit climate finance goal to support projects and programs to deliver climate solutions where they are needed most. This is not just about financial commitments - it’s about climate justice. We have a real opportunity here and it’s not too late to see a meaningful outcome.