There is extensive global media coverage of the conclusion of COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan. BBC News says: “Richer countries have promised to raise their funding to help poorer countries fight climate change to a record $300bn (£238bn) a year, but the deal has come under criticism from the developing world. The talks…ran 35 hours late, and came within inches of collapse. The agreement falls well short of the $1.3tn developing countries were pushing for. The African Group of Negotiators described the final pledge as ‘too little, too late’, while the representative from India dismissed the money as ‘a paltry sum’. But after two weeks of often bitter negotiations in the Azerbaijani capital, Baku, poorer nations did not stand in the way of a deal.” The Financial Times says that “fears about stretched budgets around the world and the election of Donald Trump…drove the developing countries into acceptance of the slightly improved package”. The newspaper continues: “Speaking from the floor, Indian delegation member Chandni Raina said the country was ‘extremely disappointed’ by the abrupt passage of the agreement, adding: ‘This was stage-managed…I am sorry to say that we cannot accept it’…The broadside was followed by objections from Bolivia, Chile and Nigeria, who were told by COP29 president Mukhtar Babayev that their statements were noted. Smaller nations, such as Malawi, Fiji and the Maldives, joined in the grievance…European Union climate commissioner Wopke Hoekstra tried to assure disappointed smaller nations, saying he was ‘confident we will reach the $1.3tn’ economists say developing countries need to shift to green energy and cope with climate change.”

The Associated Press highlights the reaction of Nigeria’s Dr Nkiruka Maduekwe, CEO of the National Council on Climate Change, who called the deal an “insult and a joke”. Nigeria’s Premium Times says “many developing countries, including Nigeria, were not impressed” with the deal. Politico says the summit ended with a “long-fought deal – and a lot of anger”. The Guardian interviews Indian negotiator Chandni Raina, who describes that deal as “completely a travesty of justice”. Another Guardian article quotes Mohamed Adow, director of the Power Shift Africa thinktank, saying: “This [summit] has been a disaster for the developing world…Rich countries have promised to ‘mobilise’ some funds in the future, rather than provide them now. The cheque is in the mail.” Climate Home News notes that the “bad-tempered talks” saw UN climate chief Simon Stiell describing the new finance goal as “an insurance policy for humanity, amid worsening climate impacts hitting every country”. Le Monde says the deal has left a “bitter taste” for the global south.

The Wall Street Journal says: “The US, Europe and a handful of other rich countries agreed to triple the financing they provide for climate-change projects in the developing world to at least $300bn a year by 2035, signalling their commitment to the Paris climate accord despite a looming obstacle: the incoming presidency of Donald Trump.” The Washington Post says: “The deal requires no specific pledges from any countries and falls short of the $1.3tn poorer nations say they will need every year a decade from now. While it triples rich nations’ current commitment to help vulnerable ones cope with mounting climate disasters, the new vow comes after more than a decade in which they struggled to meet that $100bn pledge.” The New York Times explains that “the deal struck…calls on private companies and international lenders like the World Bank to cover the hundreds of billions in the shortfall”, adding: “That was seen by some as a kind of escape clause for rich countries…The agreement on finance ultimately affirmed a commitment to last year’s consensus on transitioning away from fossil fuels. But delegates rejected a separate document that, in theory, focused on the transition away from fossil fuels, but that after many rounds of editing ended up not even mentioning them.” Bloomberg says: “The new agreement will help inform individual country commitments for cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 2035 as well as the next round of UN climate talks in Brazil. Many developing nations emphasised the smaller-than-hoped finance commitment would slow their transitions to emission-free energy and constrain their ambition in setting carbon-reducing targets due in February.” Agence France-Presse focuses on US president Joe Biden “praising” the deal, saying it is a “significant step” to fighting global warming, while pledging “continued action by America despite his incoming successor Donald Trump’s climate scepticism”.

Elsewhere, South Africa’s Mail & Guardian says that leaders of the least-developed countries (LDCs), such as the Gambia’s environment minister Rohey John, are “appalled” at the outcome, saying the finance deal is “far too small”. He is quoted saying: “Developed countries are not only delaying climate justice, but they are also blocking any potential economic progress for continents like Africa because they simply refuse to pay up. We were never on a begging mission; this was a responsibility to honour commitments for putting us in the dire climate change position we are in right now.” The Hindustan Times claims that “India stood up for the global south” and says the finance deal “was criticised and rejected by civil society organisations”. The Financial Times has an account of how “the $300bn deal…was only reached through frantic diplomacy, including a high-level meeting the night before in a VIP room of the Baku stadium”.

Several outlets focus on a deal reached at COP29, as Reuters describes, to set “rules for a global market to buy and sell carbon credits that proponents say will mobilise billions of dollars into new projects to help fight global warming”. The newswire adds: “The agreement, clinched roughly a decade after international talks on forming the market began, hinged on how to ensure credibility in the system so it can reliably lead to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change…Details to be worked out included how a registry to track credits would be structured, as well as how much information countries should share about their deals and what should happen when projects go wrong. Among the strongest voices was the European Union calling for stricter UN oversight and greater transparency over trades between nations, while the US sought more autonomy over the deals struck.” Carbon Pulse says the Article 6 deal is a “momentous win for international carbon markets”. In an analysis piece for the Guardian, Patrick Greenfield writes: “Trading could begin as soon as 2025 once technical bodies have agreed on the finer details. If it works well, the market would fund the low-hanging fruit of climate mitigation while making sure emissions are capped in line with the Paris Agreement. There is particularly strong interest in carbon removal, with many large tech firms buying credits and trying to scale up the market. After several false starts, negotiators and observers say this is the last chance to get it right…[but] big concerns about carbon markets remain.”

The Guardian reported just on the eve of the COP29 deal being agreed that a “Saudi Arabian delegate has been accused of directly making changes to an official COP29 negotiating text”. The article continues: “COP presidencies usually circulate negotiating texts as non-editable PDF documents to all countries simultaneously, and they are then discussed. Giving one party editing access ‘risks placing this entire COP in jeopardy’, one expert said…Earlier on Saturday, a document was circulated by the Azerbaijani presidency with updates to the negotiating text on the just transition work program (JTWP). This aims to help countries move to a cleaner and more resilient future, while reducing inequalities. The document was sent with ‘tracked changes’ from the previously circulated version. In two cases, the document showed edits were made directly by Basel Alsubaity, who is from the Saudi ministry of energy and the lead on the JTWP. It was not sent to other countries to edit, the Guardian was told…The COP29 presidency, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Saudi delegation have been contacted for comment.”

State broadcaster China Global Television Network reports that, following the deal in Baku, China “calls on all parties to adhere to multilateralism…ensure no backsliding on the basis of the Paris Agreement”. It says the Chinese delegates at COP29 “fully participated in the negotiations and consultations on different issues and played a constructive and leading role in the success of the conference”. State-run newspaper China Daily, via the Xinhua news agency, notes that Zhao Yingmin, head of the Chinese delegation, said at the closing plenary that developed countries’ climate finance commitments still “fall far short of meeting the needs of developing nations” and their financial obligations must be “further clarified”. The newspaper adds that Zhao “reaffirmed that China…will steadfastly promote the multilateral process and international cooperation on climate change, regardless of how the global landscape evolves”. Wang Yi, vice-chair of China’s National Expert Panel on Climate Change, tells China Daily that $250bn per year by 2035 – the first finance goal number to emerge in the negotiating draft texts (which later became the agreed $300bn) – is not enough to deliver the 1.5C, or even 2C climate goal. BBC News quotes Kate Logan, co-director of thinktank Asia Society, saying China had worked “constructively” with the EU and other developed countries to “find a workable compromise”. BBC News has a feature by climate editor Justin Rowlatt, who says China was “very cooperative” at COP29, but it “may not be entirely helpful on some of the challenges that slow the process, such as instances when countries use COP as a stage to champion their own interests”. 

Meanwhile, Ma Jun, the director and founder of the Beijing-based Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs (IPE), tells the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post that “China can be expected to continue to provide and expand its financial support to developing countries and vulnerable countries”. He is also quoted saying the return of Donald Trump means China-US cooperation at the “subnational level or among the private sectors” will become “more important”. Separately, Bloomberg says China is “on course” for a scenario where the country’s carbon emissions may already have peaked, which is “almost inconceivable at the start of this decade”. The Economist, citing Carbon Brief analysis, says whether global emissions have peaked “depends on the latest figures from China, the world’s largest emitter”.

Ahead of the deal being agreed over the weekend, German foreign minister Annalena Baerbock stated that some countries had “clearly come to Baku with the intent to reverse the progress made in Dubai”, reports Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ). Baerbock, who attended the conference despite being ill, planned to leave on Friday, but decided to stay and lead negotiations, FAZ notes. It adds that, by Saturday, “visibly exasperated”, she escalated her criticism: “Here at the climate conference in Baku, we are in the midst of a geopolitical power play by some fossil-fuel states. Unfortunately, their playing field is the backs of the poorest and most vulnerable countries.” The publication notes that in her criticism, Baerbock also included the host country, Azerbaijan, quoting her saying: “We Europeans will not allow the most vulnerable countries in the world, particularly the small island states, to be taken advantage of by some of the new fossil and wealthy emitters here, possibly even with the backing of the COP presidency.” Handelsblatt reports Baerbock saying that the conference ended “with a laughing and a crying eye”, adding that progress on emissions reductions had “not been made”. Der Spiegel reports that Baerbock assured that Germany would “deliver” on the $300bn promise. It quotes her saying: “No one has forgotten the historical responsibility.” The foreign minister emphasised that “those who came here [to COP] to prevent progress and weaken our multilateral UN system have failed – miserably”, reports RedaktionsNetzwerk Deutschland. The outlet also adds that the head of Greenpeace Germany noted that, “thanks to the small island states, Brazil and Germany, the financing gap is set to be closed by next year in Brazil”.

The Times reports that Ed Miliband, the UK energy and net-zero secretary, has “insisted” that the COP29 deal “is in Britain’s interest”. Miliband tells the newspaper: “It’s 100% in Britain’s national interest this deal. We need to accelerate the clean-energy transition for two particular reasons. First, we are 1% of emissions; 99[%] of all emissions also need to be reduced and dealt with, and this facilitates that. Secondly, by the clean-energy transition being driven forward it creates huge opportunities for businesses and jobs.” It says he adds that there is a “great British tradition” of helping more vulnerable countries. The Times also carries analysis of the talks by its environment editor Adam Vaughan, who writes: “A key story at COP29 was how Britain and Brazil buddied up in Baku. The two countries showed leadership by announcing new emissions targets for 2035, blazing a trail ahead of other countries. Miliband has been a prominent figure in the halls, along with the Brazilian environment minister Marina Silva. Both are veterans of UN climate talks. The growing warmth and co-operation between the two countries, including a clean-power pact, grew out of Miliband’s visit to Brasilia in August. Brazil had huge self-interest in Baku’s success. Next year it hosts COP30, expected to be a blockbuster conference on a par with Glasgow three years ago. The talks will act as a de-facto deadline for countries, including China, to follow the lead of Britain and Brazil and publish new climate strategies.”

Several newspapers carry editorials commenting on the outcomes of COP29. An editorial in the Financial Times argues that, “despite [the] difficulties, COP29 showed multilateralism can still work, just, in an age of inflation-scarred economies and rising geopolitical turbulence”. An editorial in the Independent says that the deal is “disappointing – but it is a start”, adding: “It is evident the climate crisis has slipped down the agenda of many world leaders, but it is critical we maintain momentum.” The Guardian says: “There are signs that big polluters are getting serious – especially among the newly emerging giant economies. Indonesia, one of the world’s top 10 carbon emitters, pledged to phase out coal and other fossil fuels within 15 years and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, a decade ahead of its previous target. Rhetoric should give way to action. The moral and practical imperative for equity and ambition has never been clearer. Next year’s UN talks in Belém must serve as a turning point to deliver on promises and ensure climate justice becomes a reality.”

An editorial in China Daily says: “For breaking the long-standing multilateral negotiations stalemate over climate financing alone, the Baku meeting stands out as an unusual climate diplomacy success…The progress made on carbon markets was…lauded as another breakthrough in Baku…Promises must be kept. Millions of lives depend on that. The developed countries must deliver on their commitment to provide finance to help developing countries.” The National, based in the United Arab Emirates (the location of COP28 last year), has published an editorial under the headline: “The $300bn agreement to fight the climate crisis will be inadequate in the face of the challenge.” Spain’s El País carries an editorial which says that, “despite the low ambition of COP29, multilateralism sends a message of resistance amid growing threats”. The Economist says: “It is now up to all countries to manage the tricky task of integrating climate goals into their economic planning. This is a huge task, especially for the countries with the shallowest pockets. These are also often those with the greatest need for measures to cope with hotter temperatures and more extreme weather.”

Amid the dozens of COP29-focused comment pieces published across the world’s media, Fiona Harvey in the Guardian says that “rich countries still need convincing that giving money to poorer nations is very much in their interests too”, adding: “If COP29 was hard, it is only the beginning of the process. In the coming years, developed countries will be expected to make individual pledges of climate finance to show they are ramping up their efforts to meet the goal. Getting those proposals to add up is likely to be a whole series of equally bitter battles.” Mark Gongloff in Bloomberg writes: “The climate agreement reached at the United Nations’ COP29 confab is, to put it mildly, insufficient. To put it not so mildly, it’s pathetic.” Politico’s Karl Mathiesen says: ”[T]here is little doubt the COPs will continue to draw the hopeful and determined together every year. And, yes, the fossil fuel industry, too. But expecting Belém alone – or Adelaide, or Delhi, or wherever the talks may be held in the future – to solve one of humanity’s most urgent problems is asking to be let down.” Marc Daalder, writing for New Zealand’s Newsroom, argues that “a bad deal was better than no deal”. He continues: “No deal would have locked in less finance for the developing world, not more. And it also would have further eroded already shaky faith in multilateralism, after poor outcomes at the G20 and rising geopolitical tensions at the UN.” Sky News’s science editor Tom Clarke says: “This was a deal so bad, and so unpopular, that this year’s COP host Azerbaijan was forced to gavel it through without allowing objections…This Baku deal on finance, however weak, does signal the growing momentum away from fossil fuels. It also signals an acceptance among rich countries that climate impacts in the developing world ultimately affect us all.”

Elsewhere, the Guardian has the reaction of veteran environmental journalist Geoff Lean: “This was one of the most difficult of the 29 COPs I have followed. The deal falls a long way short of hopes at the start of the climate summit, and even further behind what the world urgently needs. But coming after negotiations that frequently teetered on the very edge of collapse, the result does keep climate talks alive despite Donald Trump’s second coming, and has laid the first ever international foundation, however weak, on which the world could finally construct a system of financing poor countries’ transition away from fossil fuels.” The Guardian also carries comment from Ashish Ghadiali, the founder of Radical Ecology, who writes: “Yes, there is a lot of greenwashing, but COP summits are our best chance of averting climate breakdown.” A third comment piece in the Guardian – by Bill Hare of Climate Analytics – begins: “COP29 in Baku has concluded but its outcome is disappointing – in many dimensions. Its decisions on finance – agreeing that the developed world would provide $300bn a year by 2035 – come nowhere close to what’s needed. Ultimately, it may even be poisonous because of its lack of ambition and muddled scope – it does not even cover loss and damage.” Pilita Clark in the Financial Times observes how “two-week tussles over financial, legal, trade, farming, health and scientific issues, to name just a few agenda items, make COPs the Olympics of negotiations”. The Times has a “dispatch from Baku” by Hannah Lucinda Smith who opines on: ”Vegans, caviar and petrostates: the irony-free world of COP29.”

Meanwhile, Le Monde carries an interview with sociologist Stefan Aykut: “The COPs are part of the dams against the populist storm sweeping across the planet. Despite a minimal agreement and obstruction from oil-producing countries, the climate conference showed, in his eyes, that multilateralism is not dead.” Natalie Unterstell, founder of Talanoa Institute, writes in Brazil’s Folha de S.Paulo: “The COP29 agreement is incrementalism that does not resolve climate emergency.” And Der Spiegel features a commentary by science editor Dr Susanne Götze, who says any call to abolish climate summits “is dangerous and plays directly into the hands of populists like Trump, Milei, or the AfD, who seek to dismantle global climate protection”. Götze highlights an “alignment” between some climate activists and right-wing populists, who both view climate summits as unnecessary – though for entirely different reasons. She underscores that these summits remain the “sole platform where poorer nations can directly challenge US diplomats and EU commissioners, holding them accountable for their commitments”. 

Some outlets have published “explainers” and “key takeaway” summaries of COP29. Reuters lists “some ways of understanding what that sum [$300bn] is worth”, including: “In 2023, governments around the globe spent $6.7bn a day on military expenditure, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. That means the $300bn annual climate finance target equates to 45 days of global military spending.” Reuters has also published its “takeaways from the COP29 climate summit”, which include “cash for climate remains tight”, “Trump tamps the mood, “COP process in doubt” and “trade tensions to the fore”. BBC News’s Matt McGrath has “five takeaways from a dramatic COP29”.which include “COP itself is on the ropes” and “the quiet ascent of China”. Similarly, Bloomberg lists “five things we learned” about COP29. And the Associated Press offers: “Here’s what to know about the new funding deal that countries agreed to at UN climate talks.”

Finally, Bloomberg has a colour piece headlined: “Inside the frantic manoeuvres that saved CO29 talks at a cost.” And Canada’s CBC has a video feature called: “Chaotic, combative COP29 wraps. Did anyone get what they wanted?”

Some right-leaning UK newspapers are upset at the UK government’s claim that COP29 had “put Britain back on the map of global climate leadership”. An editorial in the Sunday Times says: “Like the conference itself, such net-zero one-upmanship looks outdated in the new era of realpolitik…What the UK needs is a mix of ambition and pragmatism. That means continuing the steady transition from fossil fuels, but doing so in a manner mindful of short-term risks. Tough targets can galvanise efforts but, if they are seen as unrealistic, swiftly erode public consent.” Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, shadow net-zero secretary Claire Coutinho attacks Keir Starmer: “He signed Britain up to even more costly climate targets in Azerbaijan, and this week he was in Brazil, cosying up to the biggest beneficiary of his climate plans – China. Perhaps he should consider staying at home.” [Coutinho, then the UK secretary, boasted last year at COP28 about how the UK “leads global action to protect rainforests, cut methane emissions and advance low carbon technologies”. Contrary to her claim, Starmer’s pledge at COP29 was fully aligned with the target legislated by the previous Conservative government in 2021.] Paul Baldwin in the Daily Express writes: “Final assessment? Yes COP29 was a fudge, and the politicking would make your flesh crawl, but ultimately a bad deal is better than no deal. For everyone. Even the perpetually apoplectic Greta Thunberg knows this and tweeted as much.” And the Daily Mail finds space, as ever, for climate-sceptic commentator Ross Clark to claim that “poor countries exploit climate panic to press us for easy cash”.

In sharp contrast, Lord Deben, former chair of the Climate Change Committee and Conservative environment minister, writes in the Independent: “As someone who has seen many a COP come and go…I am still hopeful that these new climate targets will finally stick. Indeed, I am more optimistic now that Keir Starmer has pledged further reductions to emissions, saying the UK will aim for an 81% decrease by 2035. And in the House magazine, Alasdair Johnstone from the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, writes: “As the government returns from COP29, Britain’s long-standing climate policies and growing green economy reflect our global climate influence.”

Low-income regions experienced a 377% increase in the frequency of “compound drought-heatwaves” over 1981-2020, according to a new study using a combination of observations and climate models. According to the study, the rate of increase in low-income regions is twice as fast as the increase observed in high-income regions. It says attribution analysis suggests that climate change has doubled the frequency of compound drought-heatwaves over 31% of low-income regions, compared to only 5% of high-income regions.