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.
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.
Your Results
Congratulations! Your plan for international climate aid aligns you most closely with:
