In theory, the #climatefinance target🎯 has tripled—but will it make a difference? @CGDev experts discuss the new $300 billion goal decided at #COP29, where it falls short, and where to go from here ⬇ https://t.co/Ft6R7PhOJD

Now that governments @COP29_AZ agreed the #NCQG that sets out future goals for international climate finance, the focus turns to how they will be delivered. Here are my thoughts, featuring more MS Paint graphics that I know @edking_I loves so much: https://t.co/qVG3QMpOr3

Obsessing over quantity and forgetting quality of climate finance is the Baku COP’s biggest failure. Not that t$300bn is too low to meet demands for action and justice (though that’s true). It’s that the world’s poorest & least responsible for climate change will be robbed by it.

Indeed. It’s insufficient, ill-defined, with no public finance target, no grant equivalent figure, and no refs to additionality or burden sharing. So much for learning lessons of the $100bn goal!

Punchy intervention from authors of UN-backed IHLEG climate finance report re #COP29 text 'This figure is too low and not consistent with delivery of the Paris Agreement. Our analysis shows that the NCQG, based on the components that it covers, should commit developed countries

Just reinforces point that $250bn by 2035 is unambitious and woefully inadequate

And if that $250bn includes ALL climate finance from MDBs, then it’s even less ambitious than first appears (since c.30% of MDB finance is paid for by developing countries)

Re #NCQG. Disappointing. No refs to new and additional. No refs to grant equivalence. Refs to additional contributions from developing countries are important (their emissions are now >50% of all GHG emissions since 1850) ). But developed countries simply must commit more.

NEW TEXTS DROPPED AT #COP29 * NCQG: Draft finance target of $250bn * UAE dialogue: clear ref to GST para 28 * UAE dialogue: Options on taking GST fwd * MWP: GST remains absent https://t.co/amsGBgyfsM 1/3

It's not just China. And the picture even starker if look at all GHGs: 'Developing' countries (non-Annex I) now account for 51% of all GHG emissions since 1850. The figure for non-Annex II countries (countries that aren't currently obliged to provide climate finance) is 63% #NCQG

Here’s hoping for a breakthrough at #COP29. Though things just got a lot harder. Blog here: https://t.co/D2NCslplmt @CGDev

Conclusion? Developed countries must do more. But absolving the growing number of large, rich, heavily polluting ‘developing’ countries of responsibility is also unfair to the poorest. Old categorisations of developed and developing are no longer fit for purpose.

5) A ‘grant equivalent’ target would reduce incentives for ever less concessional support, address developing country demands for more grants, and allow fairer comparison between donors. 6) The NCQG should at very least include principles for burden sharing

3) Richer, high emitting developing countries should also contribute. The NCQG criteria for identifying contributors provide a good starting point 4) “Buy one get one free”: could a deal be struck that links additional developed country support to developing country commitments?

1) The NCGQ should include a specific target for public climate finance. It’s what developing countries most want and need 2) Developed countries should commit, today, to at least double their commitments by 2030. It’s affordable

New #NCQG blog just out. Reaching agreement important but difficult. Six specific suggestions to help unblock the NCQG:

Very relevant to NCQG discussions! 40% of all GHG emissions since 1850 have been emitted in last 30 years, mostly from emerging economies. Existing "Annex II" climate finance providers now account for just 37% of all GHG emissions since 1850

🚨New paper! 🚨 Making Migration Work for Adaptation: Classifying Remittances as Climate Finance This is a novel, exciting paper that we hope might make a difference. Huge thanks to my co-author @JB_climate_econ and to everyone who reviewed/provided comments. Thread below! 1/

A hot topic at this week's #NCQG TED indeed! "Common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capacities" doesn't just justify some expansion of the contributor base, it demands it. But LICs/LMICs/SIDS/LDCs should pay nothing.

In short, far from perfect, but final agreement was definitely better than no deal!